






I 






ll £ I 



if 



XLIIiIJA ItV ill- CONGRESS. J 

tut. } 

lap. jjjo. 

; v/„//\$j 

* i 

\ DNITBD BTATES OF AMEEJCi 







v 





MISC i; L L A X I KB 



■ 



I. LETTERS TO DK. CHANNING ON THE TRINITY 
II. two SERMONS <»\ THE ATONEMENT. 

III. SACRAMENTAL SERMON ox THE LAMB OF GOD. 

IV. DEDICATION SERMON— REAL CHRISTIANITY. 

V LETTER T<> DK. CHANGING ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 
VI. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ANT) POSTSCRIPTS 

OF NLW ADDITIONAL MATTLK. 



BY M. STUART, 

PROF. SAC. LIT. IN Till; THEO' INSTITUTION AT ANDOVER. 






ANDOVER. 
ALLEN. HOBBILL, AX1) AVAKDAVELL. 

.NEW-YORK: MARK II. NEWMAN. 
1840. 



- 



THE LIMA** 
Qf CONOmlM 

WAf HlNOTOIi 



61 



*1 



ling !.» A. : of i longress, in the 3 ear 184$, by 

A11. in. M«»i:iMi.r.. am. WabDWB] I 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. 






LC Control Numbe: 

III mi nun 



tm P 96 029034 



]• R E FACE. 



Tin: present volume of Miscellanies owes its publication to 
pent calls made upon me to publish it. Those parts 

of it, fall but one Sermon), which had before been printed, 
were out of print, and were often called for at some of the book- 
stores which have particular connection with works published 
in this place. To print in an ephemeral pamphlet form, I 

tned (inadvisable ; as did also my friends; and hence the 
collection in the present volume of several discourses and 
letters, written at different times, and called forth originally by 
some special exigency. The sentiments expressed in these 
various compositions I still retain, after a somewhat protract- 
ed period of investigation, study, and experience. I wish to 
bequeath them to all who interest themselves in anything 
which I write, as my legacy. I cherish a desire to give my 
latest testimony in respect to the views which I have con- 
tinued to entertain, concerning the all-important topics of 
which these compositions treat. 

Unity is of course out of question, in a book of professed 
MrsCELLAXiES. Yet there is, after all, one point of unity, 
or one bond of connection, which links the whole together. 
The topics are such as constitute the very essence of the 
great questions, about which a struggle so long and arduous 
has arisen and been going on, in this quarter of our 
country. They are, moreover, vital themes of Christianity, 



\i TKi.rA- 

wkkk I Bfl inter ill times and in all places. 

i other a ledj for entering into a discussion of 

tli. -in, or for publishing the results of that rtinrtineion. in case 
install ler it deeirable. 

I doubted] at Bret, whether I should divest the various 

included in the present volume, of all their 

itame, and give them the dress of 

simple and absolute discussion. My deliberations on this 

-iii led in the conviction, that what is local and tempo- 

V will rath* to give interest to the dix'U.v-ion. In 

-mall a part of the whole, that I did not 

think the remodelling of the pieces in order to leave it out, 

either necessary or expedient 

I the observing reader may easily de- 

I ha\«- in a few instances interwoven with what 

was originally addressed to J)r. ('banning, facts or events 

which have happened nnct that period. It is an offence, 

gainst the rules of strict rhetorical propriety. But 

it w er, or at any rale more agreeable to my feelings, 

what 1 wished to say. in this way, than to load the 

text with cumbrous notes. The reader need not put it to 

the account of oversight Any formal vindication of doiag 
what I ha\ in this respect, would be a waste of time 

and words t<> little or no purpo 

The Supplementary Note to Letter I., and all the Post- 

gpting that to Letter III., have been written for the 

pre* nt edition ; and are addition* to the former publications, 

which have coM me more labour than the original eomposi- 

Of their value and importance, it belongs to read- 
i judge. 

In respect to tl ral Sermons, and the Letter on E&e- 

il w d wary to Bay more, in this place, 



r;;n \< i . vu 

than tliat the particulars which I wfak the reader lo know. 

are elaewhere given, being inserted at the head of each of 

thr-e composition* I need not here repeat what is there 
said. 

If my testimony and my arguments in regard to the topics 
disease I. Bhoald be of any avail in calling the attention of 
intelligent Christians and citizens of this Commonwealth, or 
. to the all-important subjects of which they treat, 
this publication will not be useless. Should they be listened 
to in this vicinity, or in a still wider extent, and Christians 
be roused up to a due consideration of the matters in ques- 
tion, or be satisfied with the defence I have made of the sen- 
timents which I have avowed, it will be an ample and the 

best reward of my humble labours. 

If, STUART. 
Jluol Seminary, Andover, 

May, 1846. 



COX I E N T S 



I. Letters to Dr. Ch.y.vmng on the Doctrine of the 

Trinity. 

LETTER I. Principles of Interpretation, page 3—13. 

LETTER IT. Unity of God, p. 13—20. Meaning of Person, 20—29, 
Nicene Creed, 29 — 31. Iniperfeetion of language, 31 — 34. Council 
at Constantinople in A. D. 381, 34 seq. Definitions of Person in mo- 
dern times, 36 — 40. Nature of divine Unity and objections to it, 40 
—46. Twofold Nature of Christ, 47—53. 

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE TO LETTER II. 

Nicene Creed, 54. Brief Sketch of opinions respecting the Person of 
Christ, 54 — 59. Modern attempts to define Person, 59. Examination 
of them, 60 — 71. Christology of recent philosophers in Germany, 71 
— 74. Sketch of what might be deemed a proper Creed, in relation to 
the doctrine of the Trinity, 74 seq. 

LETTER HI. Mode of Interpretation, 76—79. Testimony of Scrip- 
ture, 80—145. 

POSTSCRIPT TO LETTER III. 

Examination of Dr. Channing's Note, added to the second edition of his 
Sermon, 145—150. 

LETTER IV. Human Nature of Christ, 151 — 157. Examination of 
texts relied on by Unitarians, 158 — 164. Mode of Controversy, 1 65 
seq. 

LETTER V. Mode of Exegesis, 167 — 172. Exegesis of special pas- 
sages, 173—175. Modes of evading the results of Exegesis, 176—181. 



x I OKTENTS, 

j]i«h Iiberattsts, 182— 184 Urn of Qeman Books 
ritim.uiim of Ptfltananism, 187—190. Arc the Ortho- 
dox fairly totted ' 190— 192. 

I'm- rSCBIPI 10 i-i-i i ii; v. 

nils in Germany and in this Country, 192—1 
r i, |fn Dioi'i Letters in defence of Unitarianism, 196 

— i'ii: Hysterics of Arianism, 207 — 210. Efumcmitarianism ezamin- 
IlOteq. Union of two natures person, 211 Beq. Om 

I ! 212—215. 

II. Etauiom on rue Atonemkiit, 

Disc. I. Er] I 

:.»--_'! Banks** na si tlic doctrine, 822— 281 Proofofthe 
231 seq Philosophy nol judge, 281— 2 

Justice oi 
[mprol ability of i\ be shown 

l >: - II B m 240—241. Principles < f Ea 

•_mi seq. Scripture proof 242 
—24 -i Atonement, 245 — 251. This doctrine ran- 

H seq. 1: off ra high m< itemeht to holiness and 

vir: . 

III. BbRMOK ON Till. LAMB 01 (iJod. 

Inquiry hj whom ti John L: 29) 

on ' 262. Meaning of John's decla- 
• |. Credit doe to John, » ' a conveyed by the word 
/ |. LamJ 

sins of the world, - :. Prope 

1 lommunl ants, 271 

\\ i 'amiatu trm i mstom i Relioion. 

Matt ! & 20, - 
■•I- What is it to convene 
1 I - i other 



I DM n N r-. xi 

in Christ as the Son of God and only Saviour of shiners, 186 — MA 
LerttoCMtJ is. Religions homage, tti--2*6. Obedience 

lo Christ, - W!kh it it for Christ to be in the midst ofhisdis- 

dplee ! 297 seq. D m of Hanover Stiver church to God, 298 

V. I. irrr.il to Dk. Ciivnmmj o.v Rki.k.km < I.ir.r.kTY. 

Introduction Passages from Dr. Chaiming'fl works, 3< 3 — 308. 

Againsl whom are they aimed ! 308 — 318. First principle of true 
religions liberty, 313 — 31G. Second principle, 816 acq. Summary of 
complaints against the Orthodox, 381 seq. Cross of Chri-t compared 
with a gallows, by Dr. Channing, 336. Denial of charges againsl the 
Orthodox, 388. Challenge to Dr. Channing to support them, 341 seq. 
How ethers hare been influenced by such charges, 342 scq. Orthodox 
Creed, 34 G asq. State of feeling among the Orthodox, 349 seq. 

posxacnipx. 

Present state of parties, 353 seq. Cambridge University, 355 seq. — 
Rights of churches denied by our Courts, 362 seq. Pilgrim Fathers, 
363 seq. 



LETTERS 



ON THE 



DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, 



ORIGINALLY ADDRESSED TO THE 



REV. WM. E. CHANNING 



LETTER I 



Revf.kknd and Dear Sir, 

I have recently perused a Sermon, delivered by you at the 
ordination of the l\ev. J. Sparks, in Baltimore, with no small 
degree of interest. The subjects of which it treats must be 
regarded as highly important by every intelligent man, who 
is a serious inquirer after revealed truth. And if the views 
which you have disclosed will stand the test of examination, 
and shall appear to be those which the word of God main- 
tains, or which it will justify, it certainly will be the duty of 
every friend to Christianity to embrace and promote them. 

I have endeavoured to read your Sermon, and reflect upon 
it, without prejudice or party views. Unless I am deceived 
as to the state of my own feelings, I have endeavoured im- 
partially to weigh the arguments and examine the reasonings 
which it presents, with a wish to know and believe the truth. 
I dare not flatter myself, indeed, that I have perfectly suc- 
ceeded in doing this ; for every man who is acquainted with 
his own heart, will find reason to believe, that he often has 
been, and may again be, deceived by it. Will you permit 
me, without further introduction or apology, to lay before 
you my thoughts in regard to three topics of your discourse, 
that stand in close connection with each other, and are among 
the principal points, in regard to which I feel myself com- 
pelled to dissent from your opinions ? 

The points to which I refer are : The principles of inter- 
preting Scripture ; the unity of God ; and the divinity and 
humanity of the Saviour. I limit myself to these three* be- 
cause it would require more time and labour than I can pos- 



4 nmemjM OF INTERPRETATION. [LETT. I. 

nbl] at pr«-rnt, and more health than I enjoy, to ex- 

ainin.- all the Statements of doctrines which you have made. 

I might adduce another reason for confining myself within 
these limits. If die principles of reasoning which yon adopt] 
and the results which you deduce from them iu regard to 
i. of the points Oil which I am about to remark, arc mi- 
tt -nahlc. of incorrect, the consequences of this most extend 
themselves e$$cntiaUy to most of the remaining topics, which 
yen have discussed in your Sermon. 

The genera] principles of interpreting Scripture, you de- 

ibe in the following manner. 

•W < regard the Scriptures as* the records of God's sue 
revelations to mankind, and particularly of the last and most 
perfect revelation of his will by Jesus Christ Whatever doc- 
trines Beetn to OS td be clearly taught in the Scriptures, we re- 
OeiVe Without reserve Or exception. We do not, however, attach 

equal importance to all tin- hooks in this collection. Our reli- 
gion, we believe, lies chiefly in the New Testament. The dis- 
P< osation of Moses, compared with that of Jesus, we consider 
as imperfect, earthly, obscure, adapted to the childhood of the 

human race, a preparation for a nohler system, and chiefly use- 
ful new as serving to confirm and illustrate the Christian Scrip- 
tures. JesUS Christ is the only master of Christians, and what- 
ever be taught, either during his personal ministry, or by his 
inspired apostles, we regard as of divine authority, and proT 
t<> make the rule of our tives, 

"This authority which we give to the Scriptures, is a reason, 

we conceive, for studying them with peculiar care, and for in- 
quiring anxiously into the principles of interpretation, by which 
their true meaning may be ascertained. The principles adopt- 
ed hj the class of Christians, in whose Dame I speak, need to 
be explained, because they are often misunderstood. We are 
particularly accused of making an unwarrantable use of reason 

in the in t er p r eta tion rtf BcriptUre. We are said to exalt reason 
above revelation, to prefer our own wisdom to God's. Loose 

and undefined Charges of this kind are circulated so freely, and 
with such injurious intentions, that we think it due to ourselves, 
! tO the cause of truth, to express our views with some par- 
ticularity. 

•■<>tii leading principle in interpreting Scripture is this, that 
the Bible is a book written for men, in the language of men, 



!. l. PUVCIPL1 I CM in i i i:ii:i l'ATinN. 5 

and tl wit its meaning m to he sought in die him maim er a a thai 
»i 'other booka, We believe that God, when be condescends, to 
apeak and write, submits, if we may so say, to the eatabliahed 
rulea of speaking and \NritiiiL r . How alee would the Scriptures 
avail us more than if communicated in an unknown tongue? 

"Now all books, and all conversation, require in the reader 
or bearer the constant exercise of reason ; for their true import 
is only to be obtained bj continual comparison and inference. 
Human language, you well know, admits various interpretation*, 

and every WOfd and even sentence must he modified and ex- 
plained according to the subject which is discussed, according 
to the. purposes, feelings, circumstances, and principles of the 

writer, and according to the genius and idioms of the language 
which he uses. — These are acknowledged principles in the in- 
terpretation of human writings; and a man whose words we 
should explain without reference to these principles, would re- 
proach us justly with a criminal want of candour, and an inten- 
tion of obscuring or distorting his meaning, 

•• Were the Bible written in a language and style of its own, 
did it consist of words, which admit but a single sense, and of 
sentences wholly detached from each other, there would be no 
place for the principles now laid down. We could not reason 
about it, as about other writings. But such a book would be of 
little worth ; and perhaps, of all books, the Scriptures corres- 
pond least to this description. 

u The word of God bears the stamp of the same hand, which 
we see in his works. It has infinite connections and dependen- 
cies. Every proposition is linked with others, and is to be com- 
pared with others, that its full and precise import may be un- 
derstood. Nothing stands alone. The New Testament is built 
on the Old. The Christian dispensation is a continuation of the 
Jewish, the completion of a vast scheme of providence, requir- 
ing great extent of view in the reader. Still more, the Bible 
treats of subjects on which we receive ideas from other sources 
besides itself; such subjects as the nature, passions, relations, 
and duties of man ; and it expects us to restrain and modify its 
language by the known truths, which observation and experi- 
ence furnish on these topics. 

"We profess not to know a book, which demands a more 
frequent exercise of reason than the Bible. In addition to the 
remarks now made on its infinite connections, we may observe, 
that its style no where affects the precision of science, or the 
accuracy of definition. Its language is singularly glowing, bold, 

1* 



C l'KIN* ll'Lls Of IMI.IM'KI 5TATI0 [LKTT. I. 

And figurative, demanding mora frequent departures from the 
literal sense, than thai of our own age and country, and tonse- 
quentrj it demands more rontinual ezerciae of judgment We 
tin.l too, that the different portions of this book, instead of being 
confined i«> general truths, refer perpetually to tin- timet when 
:h( \ wn re written, to suttee of society, to modes of thinking, to 
eootrov* nice in the church, to feelings and usages, which have 
psed away, and without the knowledge of which we are esav 
stautlj in danger of extending to all times and places, what 
aras of temporary and local application. We find, too, that 
some of these books are strongly marked bj the genius and char- 
acter of their respective writers, that the Holj Spirit did pot so 
guide the apostles as t « » suspend the peculiarities of their minds, 
and thai a knowledge of their feelings, and of the influences 

under which they were placed, is one of the preparat ions for 
understand in<; their writings. With these views of the Bible, 

we feel it em- bounden durj to exercise our reason upon it per- 
petually, to compare, to infer, to look beyond the letter to the 

spirit, t<> seek in the nature of the subject, and the aim of the 
writer, his true meaninir: and, in general, to make use of what 
IS known, for explaining what is difficult, and for discovering 

in w initio. 

•• Need I descend to particulars to prove 4 that the Scriptures 

demand the exercise of reason J Take, for example, the Style 

in which the\ generally speak of God, and observe how habitu- 
ally the\ appl\ to him human passions and organs. Recollect the 
declarations of Christ, that lie came not to send peace, but a 

iWOrd; that unless we eat his flesh, and drink his hiood, we 

have no life in us : that we must hate father and mother; pluck 

out the right eye; and a vast number of passages equally bold 

and unlimited. Recollect the unqualified manner in which it is 

I of Christians that thej possess all things, know all tiling. 

and can do ail thin--. Recoiled the \erhal contradiction he- 

tween Paul and .lames, and the apparent clashing of some parts 
of Paul's writings, with the genera] doctrines and end of Chris- 
tianity. I might extend the enumeration indefinitely, and who 
does not see, that we must limit all these passages by the known 
attributes of God, of Jesus Christ, and of human nature, and by 
the circumstances under winch they were written, so as to give 
ihe language s quite different import from what it would re- 
quire, had it been applied to different beings, or \\>vd in differ- 
ent connections. 

" Enough has been Said to show in what sense we make use 



1. I.] HUNClPLKfl Of INI I.KI'Kl.TA IKiN. 7 

(>l'p';is(»ii in interpreting Scripture. From I VlrifQ of possible 
interpretations, we select that which accords with tin* nature of 
the subject, and the stale of the writer, \% i 1 1 1 the connection of 
the pass i je, with the general strain of Scripture, with the known 
character and will of God, and with the obvious and scknowl- 
n\j;ci\ laws of nature. In other words, we believe that God 

never contradicts, in one part of Scripture, what be teaches in 

another; and never contradicts, in revelation, what he teaches 

in his works and pro* idenee. And we, therefore, distrust e\< i\ 

interpretation, which, alter deliberate attention, seems repugnant 

to any established truth. We reason about the Bible precisely 

civilians do about the constitution under which we live; who, 

\on know, ste accustomed to limit one provision of that vener- 

ahle instrument by others, and to fix the precise import of its 

parts by inquiring into its general spirit, into the intentions of 
its authors, and into the prevalent feelings, impressions, and cir- 
cumstances of the time when it was framed. Without these 
principles of interpretation, we frankly acknowledge, that we 
cannot defend the divine authority of the Scriptures. Deny us 
this latitude, and we must ahandon this book to its enemies." 
pp. 3 — 8. 

To a great part of these principles, I give my cheerful and 
most cordial assent. They are the principles which I apply- 
to the explanation of the Scriptures, from day to day, in my 
private studies and in my public labours. They are the prin- 
ciples, by which I am conducted to the opinions that I have 
espoused ; and by which, so far as I am able, I expect to de- 
fend these opinions, whenever called in duty to do it. 

AVhile I thus give my cordial approbation to most of the 
above extract from your Sermon, will you indulge me in 
expressing a wish, that the rank and value of the Old Testa- 
ment, in the Christian's library, had been described in some- 
what different terms? I do most fully accord with the idea, 
that the gospel, or the New Testament, is more perfect than 
the Mosaic law, or than the Old Testament. On what other 
ground can the assertions of Paul in 2 Cor. iii, in Heb. viii, 
and in other places, be believed or justified? The gospel 
gives a clearer view than the Jewish Scriptures, of our duty 
and of our destiny ; of the objects of our hopes and fears ; of 



8 PRINCIPLE! 01 ini BKPRE1 ATION. [tBTT. I. 

!• of God and the way of salvation. I agree 

fully, thai whatever in the Old Testament respects the -lews 

rfmplj at Jen . g. flieir ritual, their food, their d 

civil polity, their government, and (in a word) what- 
ever from its nature was national and local — is not binding 

upon u- under the Christian dispensation. 

I am well satisfied, tOO, that the character of Clod and the 
duty of men were, in many respects, less clearly revealed 

under the ancient dispensation. " The law was given by 

H06< - ;" yel M no man hath seen God at any time ; the only 
[en, who dwelleth in the besom of the Father, he hath 

him" In other words it was reserved for Christ to 
make a///// display of the divine character; no mere man 

ever had such a knowledge of Cod as enabled him to do it. 

I am aware that many Christian- do not seem to understand 

this passage ; and, with well meaning hut mistaken views, 
dedooethe character and d( r Cod as fully and as clear- 

ly from the Old Testament a- from the New.* 

I most believe too, that the duties of Christians are, in 
most things, more fully and definitely taught in the gospel 
than in the Old Testament; and I cannot approve of that 
method of reasoning, which deduces our duties principally 
from text- in the Old Testament that sometimes are less 
dear, when the New Testament presents the same subjects 
in BUch character- of light thai he who runneth may read. 

But when you say: "Jesus Christ is the only master of 
Christians, and whatever he taught, either during his person- 
al ministry, or by his inspired apostles, we regard as of divine 
authority, and profess to make the rule of our lives ;" does 
not thifl naturally imply, that we are absolved from obliga- 
tion to receive the Old Testament, in any sense, as our 

guide; and that what it teaches we are not bound " to make 
nr lives f I do not feel certain that it was your 



* For more ample news of (his interesting topic, I would refer the 

;• to the littk work which I have recently published, entitled Criti- 
< > <! Tett am ati Canon, p. 385 s<p 



LETT. L] MUHCIPLBfl Of IHTEBPE1TATIOH. 9 

_rn to affirm this; but the wm.N, in their eonneetioa, 
:i naturally to bear this import To such a view I Bbonkl 
oppose the consideration, that those parte of tin* Old Testa- 
ment, which express the will of God in reference to the great 
points of duty, thai mast from the nature of moral beings 

forever tin- same under ev.-ry dispensation, may be, ami. 

'it to be, regarded a> unrepealed. There is a very sound 

maxim, in the interpretation of divine as well as human law>. 
which runs thus: Mcmmtt rati<>N<\ mam't ipsa A'-'\ i. 6. a la\s 
is unrepealed, while tin 1 reason of that law continues. Only- 
express repeal can exempt a law from the application of this 
maxim. And when our Saviour says : " Till heaven and 
earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, 
till all be fulfilled," he seems to me to have plainly declared 
the immutability of the ancient moral law, in the sense al- 
ready explained. 

What shall we say, moreover, of the devotional parts of 
the Old Testament, of the book of Psalms, for example? 
And what of those numerous prophetical parts, which are 
sermons on the duties and obligations of men, or predictions- 
of a future Messiah and of the nature and prosperity of his 
church ? Are these any more Jewish, (except as to the garb 
in which they are clothed), than Christian ? I admit that 
they are all less perfect, than that which the New Testament 
furnishes on the same topics, inasmuch as this is an account of 
the fulfilment of ancient prophecies ; but I believe both to 
be sanctioned by the same authority, and to require a similar 
respect and deference. 

In regard to what follows, in the passage above quoted, I 
cannot hesitate to say, that nothing is clearer to my appre- 
hension, than that God, when he speaks to men, speaks in 
language which is used by those whom he addresses. Of 
course, the language of the Bible is to be interpreted by the 
same law r s, so far as philology is concerned, as that of any 
other book. I ask, w r ith you : How else is the Bible a revela- 
tion ? How else can men ever come to agree in what man- 
ner the Scripture should be interpreted, or feel any as- 



N ri:iN( iru;> Of ivn:ui'i; >\. [lktt. I. 

hmmmm that tbey have attained to the meaning of it- lan- 

I Snd little from which I should dissent, in tin- remainder 
of poor observations upon the prineiphi of interpretation* I 
might, perhaps, make some objection to the manlier, in which 
Ihe oftee of reason in the interpretation of Scripture i- i 
sionallv described Bat I am confident, that I admitas fully 
as you do or can <lo, the proper office of reason, in the whole 
matter of religion, both in regard to doctrine and practice* 
It is to our reason, that the arguments which prove the divine 
origin of Christianity are addressed! and it is by reason thai 
wo prove or admit this origin, on general historical grounds. 
mm pr o s cri bes, or at any rate developes and sanctions, 
the laws of interpreting Scripture 1 . Tin- cases mentioned by 

you, in which reaSOU must he exercised, arc in general, strik- 
ing exemplifications of this. But when reason is satisfied 

that the Bible is the hook of God, by proof which she cannot 
ft, and yel preserve her character) and when she lias 

led what laws of exegesis the nature of human language 

requires ; the offloe which remains for her, in regard to the 

Scripture, is the application of those laws to the actual inter- 
pretation of the Bible. When by their application she be- 
comes satisli. d in re-pert to what the sacred writers really 
meant, in any ease, she receives it without hesitation, whether 
it relate- to a doctrine, a fact, or a precept. It is the high* 

Bee <>f reason to believe doctrines and facts which God 
has asM-rti-d to be true, and to obey his precepts; although 

many things in regard to the manner in which those tacts 
and doctrines can be explained, or those precepts vindic 

may be beyond her reach. In short, the Scriptures once 

j admitted to be the word of God, or of divine authority, 

Ike sole offloe of reason in respect to them is to act as the 

inh rprett r of Revelation, and not in any g 



ridentfron tin- later writings of Dr. Chaaning, tfeal be id- 

lnittcl tin- divine authority nf the Old Testament only in a very limited 

snd qualified sense Of die New Testament he would doubtless have 

laid: ■ it - the word of God;' hut nut: - it u the word of i 



. i. ri;i\-< [PLBi 01 in PI UPRIT1 PIOM. 



11 



K MOB ran only judge of the appropriate law- oi 

and direct the application of them in order to discover -imply 
what tin- sacred writers meant to assert This being discov- 
civ.i, it ie either to be received simply ai they bare asserted 
it, or their divine authority must be rejected, and our oblige 
tion to believe all which they assert must be denied. There 
is no other alternative. Philosophy has do rigfrl to interfere 

hen*. If she ever interferes, it must he when the question II 

pending, whether the Bible is divine. Nor baa system, pre- 

judi uiriau feeling, orthodoxy or heterodoxy so called, 

anv right to interfere. The claims of the Bible to he author- 
itative once being admitted, the simple question is : What 
does it teach ? Of any particular passage we have only to 
ask: What idea did the original writer mean to convey? 
When this is ascertained by the legitimate rules of interpre- 
tation, it is authoritative. It is orthodoxy in the highest and 
best sense of the word ; and everything which differs from it, 
which modifies it, which fritters its meaning away, is hetero- 
doxy, is heresy ; to whatever name or party it is attached. 

I hope you will agree, without hesitation, to these remarks. 
The grand Protestant maxim, that the Bible is the only and 
sufficient rule of faith and practice, implies most clearly the 
very same principles which I have stated; and which every 
man must admit, who acknowledges the paramount claims of 
the Bible to be believed, and has any tolerable acquaintance 
with the subject of its interpretation. 

If there be anything in your statement, generally consid- 
ered, of the laws of interpretation, to which I object, it belongs 
mostly to the colouring which has been given to some of your 
language. You commence with saying, that your party are 
charged with " exalting reason above revelation ;" with u pre- 
ferring their own w f isdom to God's ;" and that " these charges 
are circulated freely and with injurious intentions." You 

In the first esse, only so much is admitted to be authoritative, as agrees 
with our views of what is reasonable; in the second case, the Scripture 
is acknowledged as the only rule of faith and practice. 



12 PftOfCIFLBfl OF INTKKPKLTATloV. [LETT. I. 

will readily acknowledges as b genend fact, thai there is some 
difficulty in giving an impartial statement of opinions, which 
^w• \<rv Btrongly feel to have been misrepresented. We 

Certainly are under temptation, in such cases, to set off our 
own opinion- to the best advantage, and to place those of our 
opponents in the most repulsive attitude. And although 

Trinitarians, in fact, differ less from you in respect to the 

laws of interpretation, than you seem to have apprehended, 

yet the belief, on your part, that a wide difference exists, 

in- to have given a peculiar cast to some of your sen- 
tences, which simple and onimpassioned discussion would 

hardly admit 

With the last two paragraphs of your Sermon, that are 
quoted above, I wish not to be understood as signifying that I 

entirely agree. It is, however, rather the application of some 
exegetical principles which is made in them, than the princi- 
ples themselves, from which I dissent. I shall have occasion 
to remark hereafter on this subject. I have mentioned it 
now, merely to prevent any mistake with regard to the 
meaning of what I say here, respecting the laws of interpre- 
tation as exhibited by you. 

It would have given me pleasure, to find you unconditionally 
admitting that the principles of interpretation which you de- 
fend, are not original, nor peculiar to your party. But you 
•a to qualify this by saving, that u att Christians occa- 
sionally adopt them." It' I understand you rightly, then, 
you would admit, that only Unitarians receive the ichole sys- 
t< in of exegesis which you have described, and practise upon it. 
In this however, if this be your meaning, you are mistaken, 
in ease you speak only of leading principles ; at least it ap- 
pear- plainly BO to me. in respect to the great mass of New 
England divines, who at the present time are called orthodox. 
I doubt whether any man can Btndy the science of interpreta- 
tion, tor a considerable time together, without adopting those 
principles tor substance, which you seem to claim appropri- 
ately (as a whole) for Unitarian*. 1 speak not, of course, of 



i I it. n. j GOD. 13 

particular and occasional applications of these principles by 
Daiurians] to which, in certain cases, the orthodox can by 
no deans assent 

How can ii be explained, then, supposing thai you and I 

arc both Sincerely seeking after truth, and that both adopt for 

substance the same maxim- of interpretation, that we should 
differ bo widely in the results that {low from the application 
of these principles? Perhaps Bome light may be cast upon 
this question in the Beqoel of these letter-. 



LETTER II 



Reverend and Dear Sib, 

It would be very gratifying to find, in your Sermon, as 
much respecting the doctrine of the Trinity with which I 
might accord, as in your principles of interpretation. My 
apprehensions respecting this doctrine, however, differ from 
yours. It is not without some examination and reflection, 
that I have embraced my present views of it; and the peru- 
sal of your statement of the doctrine in question, and your 
arguments against it, have not persuaded me that my views 
are erroneous. 

You will not expect me, however, in these letters, which 
are intended to be brief, to go into a discussion of this great 
subject, which shall embrace all the important topics which it 
presents. I intend to touch on those points only, on which 
the hinge of the controversy seems to me to turn ; and on 
these, only in a manner as summary as the nature and diffi- 
culty of the case will permit. 

The statement which you make of your own faith in re- 
gard to the unity of God, and your account of the doctrine 
of the Trinity, are as follows : — 

"First. We believe in the doctrine of God's unity, or that 

2 



11 COUTT or (,(»D. [LETT. II. 

there m one God, and one only. r r<> this truth we give infinite 
importance, and we fee] ourselves hound to take heed, lest any 
man spoil ua of it bj vain philosophy. The proposition that 
then is om CM seems to us exceedingly plain. We understand 
b] it, that there is one being, one mind, one person, one intelli- 
LTnt tgent, and one only, to whom underived and infinite per- 
fection and dominion belong. We conceive, that these words 

could have conveyed do other meaning to the simple and uncul- 
tivated people who were Bet apart to he the depositaries of this 

great truth, and who were utterly incapable of understanding 
those hair breadth distinctions between being and ptrstm^ which 
the Bagacity of latter ages has discovered. We find no intima- 
tion, that this language was tO be taken in an unusual sense, or 

that God's unity was a quite different thing from the oneness of 
other intelligent beings. 

"We object to the doctrine of the 'Trinity, that it BUDVertS the 
unit} of God. According tO this doctrine there are three infinite 

and equal persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Fa- 
ther, Son. and Holy (ihost. Bach of these persons, as described 
bj theologians, has his own particular consciousness, will, and 
perceptions. They love each other, converse with each other, 
and delight in each other's society. They perform different parts 
in man's redemption, each having his appropriate office, and 
neither doing the work of the other. The Son is mediator, and 
not the Father. The Father sends the Son, and is not himself 
sent; DOT is he conscious, like the Son, of taking flesh. \[l\{) 

then, we have three intelligent agents, possessed of different con- 
sciousnesses, different wills, and different perceptions, perform- 
ing different acts, and sustaining different relations j and rf these 

things do not imply and constitute three minds or beings, we 

are utterl\ at a loss to know how three, 1 minds or beings arc to 

he formed, It is difference of properties, and acts, and con- 
sciousness, which leads us to the belief of different Intelligent 

beings, and if this mark lail us. our whole knowledge fails; we 
have no proof', that all the agents and persons in the universe are 
not <»ne and the >ame mind. When wo attempt to conceive of 

three Gods, we can d*> nothing more than represent to ourselves 

three agents, distinguished from each other by similar marks 

and peculiarities to those, which separate the persons of. the 

Trinity; and when Common Christians hear these persons 

Spo k e n of as conversing with each other, loving each other, and 

performing ditferent acts, how- can they help regarding them as 
different beings, different minds?" — pp, 8, 9, 



I! IT. II.] I NMV «»i- (,ol>. 1.") 

M\ object in tkii letter, i> not wo much t<> controvert your 

ed, a- i<> remark on your exposition of the doctrine of the 

Trinity, as stated, believed, and defended, by those with 

whom I am accustomed to think ami act. 

Admitting thai you have given a fair account of our belief; 
•mot Bee, indeed, why we are not virtually guilty of 7V/- 
or at least of something which approximates so near 
to it. that I acknowledge myself unable to distinguish it from 
Tritheism. But 1 cannot help feeling, thai you have made 
neither an impartial, nor a cornet, statement of what we be- 
lieve, ami what we arc accustomed to t«ach and defend. 

Ir needs but a moderate acquaintance with the history of 

the doctrine in question, to satisfy anv one, that a great vari- 
ety of explanations have been attempted by inquisitive, or by 

adventurous minds. All acknowledge the dilliculty of the 
subject ; I regret to say, that some have not refrained from 
treating it, as though it were more within their comprehension 
than it is, 

But among all the different explanations, which I have 
found, I have not met with any one which denied, or at least 
was designed to deny, the unity of God. All admit this to 
be a fundamental principle. All acknowledge that it is de- 
lated in characters of light, both in the Jewish and Chris- 
tian revelations; and that to deny it would be the grossest 
absurdity, as well as impiety. 

It may indeed be questioned, whether the explanations 
given of the doctrine of the Trinity, by some who have specu- 
lated on this subject, are consistent with the divine unity, 
when the language which they use is interpreted agreeably to 
the common laws of exegesis. But that their representations 
were not designed to call in question the divine unity, is what 
I think every candid reader of their works will be, or at least 
ought to be, disposed to admit. 

Now when 1 consider this fact, so plain and so easily estab- 
lished, and then look at the method in which you state the 
doctrine of the Trinity, as exhibited above ; I confess it gives 
me pain, to think that you have not conceded, or even inti- 



1 6 I'M IV 01 <.<'I'. [LETT. II. 

mated, thai Trinitarians do, or can, admit the unity of God. 

V(»;i have :i light to Bay, if you so think, that the doctrine of 
tin- Trinity, AS tin and defend it, is at variance with 

the divine unity; and moreover, it' you bo believe, that tie 
two things are inconsistent with each other, lint to appro- 
priate to those solely, who call themselves Unitarians, the 

belief that there is hut one Godj or to construct an account 
<-t" i In- Trinitarian creed, (as it seems to me you have done, in 

the paragraph on which I am remarking), so as not even to 
intimate t<> your hearers or reader-, that your opponents ad- 
mit or advocate the divine unity ; is doing that whieh you, as 
I am apt to think, would censure in an antagonist, and which 

cannot well serve the interests of truth. 

But let 08 examine more particularly your statement of our 
I : 

u We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that it suhverts the 
unit\ of <;<>d. According to this doctrine, then.' are three infi- 
nite and equal pei sons, po>s< tssing supreme divinity, called the 

Father, Son, and Hoi} Ghost Each of these persona, as de- 
scribed hy theologians, has his own particular consciousness, 
will, and perceptions. They love each other, converse with 
each Other, and delight in each other's society. They perform 
different parts in man's redemption, each having his appropriate 
office, and neither doing the work of the other. The Son is me- 
diator, and not the Father. The Father sends the Son, and is 
not himself sent ; nor is he conscious, like the Son, of taking 
i. Here then we have; three intelligent agents, possi ssed of 
different consciousnesses, different wills, and different percep- 
tions, performing different acts, and sustaining different relations ; 

and it' these things do UOt imply and Constitute three minds or 
beings, we ;i re utterly at a !<»>s to know how three minds or 

beings arc to be formed." — p. !'. 

li not this account a very different one from that which 
many of your brethren are accustomed to give of us? By 

them it i- -aid, that there is a great variety of discordant and 
Contradictory statements and explanations of the doctrine of 

tin- Trinity, among those who embrace it. Do not you amal- 

Ufi all together; make us harmonious Tritheists ; and 



t.i.tt. ii.] i \! rv Of Gtn>. 17 

then give as over to the reproach of Tritheism, <>r at least of 
glaring inconsistent 
After all, the statement which you exhibit of our view-, is 

very far from that which we. (or at lea.-t all Trinitaiianfl 
with whom I am acquainted), make of our belief, I do not 
deny, that ritera have given grounds for a statement 

not very diverse from yours, as it regards the doctrine of the 

Trinity. Even some great and good men, in their zeal to 
defend this doctrine, have sought to reduce the whole subject 

to human comprehension. How vain the attempt, experi- 
has demonstrated. Effbrta of this nature, however well 
designed or ably conducted, never yet have led to anything 
but greater darkness. " Who can by searching find out God ? 
Who can find out the Almighty to perfection ?" 

But though I readily admit, that efforts to explain what in 
the nature of the case is inexplicable, may have misled some 
in their exertions to acquire religious knowledge, or given 
occasion to others of stumbling ; yet I am not prepared to ad- 
mit, that the great body of Trinitarians have given just occa- 
sion to charge them with a denial of the unity of God, or with 
opinions subversive of this. You certainly ought not to deny 
them the same liberty, in the use of terms, which all men 
take on difficult subjects, for the accurate description of which, 
language is not framed, perhaps* is not in its nature adequate. 
They must discuss subjects of such a nature by using figura- 
tive language ; by using terms, which, (if I may be indulged 
the liberty of speaking thus), approximate as nearly to the 
expression of the ideas that they mean to convey, as any 
which they can select. If there is any obscurity in these 
general observations, I hope it will be cleared up in the re- 
marks that are to follow. 

Since I refuse assent to your statement of our belief, you 
will feel a right to inquire what we do believe, that you may 
compare this with the doctrine of divine unity, and judge for 
yourself, whether it is subversive of it or not. I cannot re- 
fuse my assent to a proposal so reasonable ; nor do I feel any 
inclination to shrink from the task of stating our belief, or to 
2* 



18 IXITY OF GOD. [LETT. II. 

proffer tbfi excuse for DO! explicitly stating it, that everything 
respecting the subject is too mysterious and recondite to be 
an object of distinct contemplation or statement. What we 
lo believe can be stated; what we do not profess to define 
Or explain can be stated, and also the reasons why we do not 
attempt definition or explanation ; and this is what I shall 
now attempt 

I must nut. however, be understood as pledging myself, 
that all those with whom in general I am accustomed to think 
and act. will adopt my statement, and maintain that it ex- 
hibit- the best method of explaining or defending the great 
doctrine in question. Notwithstanding we are so often 
changed with adherence to form- and modes of expression as 
contained in oreeds, we still employ as great a variety of lan- 
guage in expressing our views of the doctrine of the Trinity, 
a- we do in respect to the other doctrines of religion. With 
ird to the statement which I shall make, I can say only, 
that it is not the result of concert, in any degree, with my 
clerical brethren, for the purpose of making a statement to 
which they will adhere. It is the result of investigation and 
reflection on the subject, as it appears to be exhibited in the 
Scriptures, and in the writings of the leading divines whom I 
have been able to consult. 

I am now prepared to say, that I believe, 

I. That God is ONE, numerically one, in essence and attri- 
hutrs. In other word-, the infinitely perfect Spirit, the Crea- 
tor and Preserver of all things, the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost, ha- numerically the same estate*, and the same perfec- 
tion^ BO far a- they are known to us. To particularize; the 
Son po not simply a si/nilar or equal essence and per- 
fection-, hut numerically the §ame as the Father, without 
division, and without multiplication. 

II. The Sou (ami also the Holy Spirit) does, in some ra- 
sped truly and really, not merely nominally or logically, dif- 
fer flDOQ the Father. 

I am aware, Sfl I have hinted above, that you may find 
Wllters Upon the doctrine of the Trinity, who have Stated the 



T. II.] I M I V OF GOD. 10 

of mj first » in a manner somewhat dit r 

ent. Bat after makinj lUowances for inattention to pre- 

. the difficulty of the subject, and the vari- 
ous expedients to which men naturally resort in order to il- 
lustrate a difficult subject, I am not aware that many of them 
at, substantially, from tl. oaent now made. 

Certain it is, that the Lutheran Confession exhibits the >ame 
view. TL The divine em . which 

i. and is. God ; eternal, incorporeal, indivisible ; of 
infinite • wisdom, and goodness : the Creator and Pre- 

of all things, visible and invisible."* 

The Confession of Helvetia (written A. D. 1566) declares, 
that k% God is one in essence or nature, subsisting by him- 

. all sufficient in himself, invisible, without a body, infinite, 
eternal, the Creator of all things visible and invisible, etc." 
It add- : " We detest the multitude of gods, because it is ex- 
written : The Lord, thy God, is one God, etc." 

The Confession of Basil (A. D. L532) declares, that there 

• One eternal and almighty God, in essence and substance, 
and not three gods." 

The Confession of the TTaldenses states, that the Holy 
Trinity, is in essence one only true, alone, eternal, almighty, 
and incomprehensible God, of one equal and indivisible es- 
sence." 

The French Confession (A. D. 1566) says : M We believe 
and acknowledge one only God, who is only one and simple 
essence, spiritual, eternal, invisible, immutable, infinite, etc." 

The English Confession (A. D. 1662) states, that the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, u be of one power, of one 
majesty, of one eternity, of one Godhead, and one substance. 
And although these three persons be so divided, that neither 
the Father is the Son, nor the Son is the Holy Ghost, nor 
the Father; yet, nevertheless, we believe that there is but 
one very God." 

* Una esl - itia divina. qua:- appellator, et est. Decs j a.-ternu-. in- 
corporeus. impartiMlis : immensa potentia. sapientia, bonitate ; Creator 
et Conservator omnium rerum. visibilium et invisibilium. (Art. I.) 



20 UNITY OF GOD. [LETT. II. 

The Confession of Belgium (A. D. 1566) declares, that 
" There is one only simple and spiritual essence, which we 
call God, eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, 
infinite, etc." 

The Articles of the English episcopal church declare, that 
" there is but one living and true God, everlasting, without 
body, parts, or passions, etc." 

The Confession of the Reformed churches in the Nether- 
lands, revised at the Synod of Dort (A. D. 1618—1619), 
declares : " We believe that there is one only and simple, 
spiritual Being, which we call God ; and that he is eternal, 
incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, etc." (Vide 
Harmony of Confessions.) 

With these agrees the Westminter Confession, approved 
by the general Assembly of Divines in A. D. 1647, adopted 
by all the Presbyterian churches in Great Britain and Ameri- 
ca, and assented to by a great part of the Congregational 
churches in New England. Its words are : " There is but 
one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and 
perfection, a pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or 
passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, 
etc." (West. Con. p. 32.)* 

Now is this the denial of the divine unity, with which we 
are implicitly charged? Can Unitarians present a more 
complete description of the divine unity, than is presented 
by these Symbols of different denominations of Christians, 
who admit the doctrine of the Trinity ? 

But, admitting our statement of the divine unity to be cor- 
rect, you will probably aver, that my second proposition is 
subversive of my first. Whether this be so, or not, is what 
I now propose to investigate. 

The common language of the Trinitarian Symbols is, that 
" there are three persons in the Godhead" In your com- 
ments upon this, you have all along explained the word per- 
son, just as though it were an established point, that Trinita- 

* So too the Westminster Catechism : " The same in* substance, equal 
in power and glory." 



LETT. II.] MEANING OF PERSON. 21 

rians use this word in such a connection, in its ordinary ac- 
ceptation as applied to men. But can you satisfy yourself 
that this is doing us justice ? What fact is plainer from 
church history, than that the word person was introduced 
into the creeds of ancient times, merely as a term which 
would somewhat strongly express the disagreement of Chris- 
tians in general with the reputed errors of the Sabellians, 
and others of similar sentiments, who denied the existence of 
any real distinction in the Godhead, and asserted that the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were merely attributes of God, 
or the names of different ways in which he revealed himself 
to mankind, or of different relations which he bore to them, 
and in which he acted ? The Nicene fathers meant to deny 
the correctness of such views, when they used the word per- 
son. They designed to imply by it, that there was some 
real, not merely nominal, distinction in the Godhead ; and 
that something more than a mere diversity of relation or ac- 
tion of the Godhead in respect to us, was intended. They 
used the word person, because they supposed it approxima- 
ted nearer to expressing the existence of a real distinction, 
than any other which they could choose. Most certainly, 
neither they, nor any intelligent Trinitarian, could use this 
term in such a latitude as you represent us as employing it, 
and as you attach to it. We profess to use it merely be- 
cause of the poverty of language ; merely to designate our 
belief of a real distinction in the Godhead ; but not to de- 
scribe independent, conscious beings, possessing separate and 
equal essences and perfections. Why should we be obliged 
so often to explain ourselves on this point ? Is there any 
more difficulty here, or anything more obnoxious, than when 
you say : " God is angry with the wicked every day ?" You 
defend yourself in the use of such an expression, by saying, 
that it is only the language of rhetoric and figure ; that it is 
merely intended to describe that in the mind of the Deity, or 
in his actions, which corresponds in some measure, or in some 
respect, to anger and its consequences in men ; not that God 
is really affected with the passion of anger. Why will you 



22 MI.ANIX'; OF PERSON'. [LETT. IT. 

not p e rmit me then to say that we speak of persons in the 
Godhead, ia order to express that which in some respect or 

other corresponds to persons a- applied to men, i. e. gome f/is- 
r \<>,, ; /( >,( tliat we attach to it the meaning of three be- 
BgS, with a separate consciousness, will, omnipotence, om- 
niscience, etc. ? When- then, considering the poverty of lan- 
guage in respect to expressing what belongs to the Deity, is 
our inconsistency in this, or how is there any absurdity in 
our language, providing there is a real foundation in the 
Scriptures on which we may rest the fact of a distinction, 
which we lx lieve to exist ? 

I could wish indeed, on some accounts, that the word ]>cr- 
son had never come into the symbols of the churches, be- 
cause it has been the occasion of so much unnecessary dispute 
and difficulty. But since it has been in common use so long, 
it is difficult now, perhaps impossible, altogether to reject it. 
If it must be retained, I readily concede that the use of it 
ought to be so guarded, as not to lead Christians generally 
into erroneous ideas of God. Nor can I suppose that the 
great body of Christians have such ideas, or understand it to 
mean that which you attribute to us as believing. Then 
surely it is not the best mode of convincing your opponents, 
to take the word in a sense so different from that in which 
they understand it, and then charge them with the absurdi- 
ties consequent upon the laiKjuage of their creed. It has al- 
ways been a conceded point, that in the statement of difficult 
subjects, or the discussion of them, terms might be used aside 
from their ordinary import. And what can teach us in a 
plainer manner, that Trinitarians do use the word person in 
tlii- way, than that they do universally agree that God is one, 
both in essence and in attributes? 

[t might have been justly expected, likewise, that before 
they were charged with subverting the divine unity, the 
meaning of the word person, in the ancient records which de- 

il)c it- first introduction into the symbols of the church, 
should have been carefully investigated. One of your rules 
of l kSj to which 1 have with all my heart assented, de- 



IT. II.] MlAMMi 01 WW30H. 23 

oumdfl that "every ward. . . . BhoaU be modified and » i x- 
plained according t<> the mbfed which is discussed, accord- 
ing to the purposes, feelings, circumstances, and principl 

of the writer." Do us the justice to apply this law of inter- 
pretation to our language, and the dispute between us about 

the meaning of person is forever at an end. 

Whal then, you doubtless will ask, is the specific nature of 
that distinction in the Godhead, which the word p/'rso// i> 
meant to designate? I answer without hesitation, that I do 

not know. The fad that a distinction exists, is what we 
aver; the specific definition of that distinction is what I shall 
by no means attempt to make out. By what shall I, or can 
I, define it ? What simile drawn from created objects, which 
are necessarily derived and dependent, can illustrate the mode 
of existence in that Being, who is underived, independent, 
unchangeable, infinite, eternal ? I confess myself unable to 
advance a single step here, in explaining what the distinc- 
tion is. I receive the fact that it exists, simply because I be- 
lieve that the Scriptures reveal the fact. And if the Scrip- 
tures do reveal the fact, that there are three persons in the 
Godhead, (in the sense explained) ; that there is a distinc- 
tion, which affords grounds for the respective appellations of 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; which lays the foundation 
for the application of the personal pronouns, I, Thou, He ; 
which renders it proper to speak of sending and being sent ; 
to speak of Christ as being with God, being in his bosom, and 
of other things of the like nature in the like way, and yet to 
hold that the divine nature equally belongs to each ; then it 
is, like every other fact revealed, to be received simply on 
the credit of divine revelation. 

Is there any more difficulty in understanding the fact that 
there is a distinction in the Godhead, than there is in under- 
standing the fact that God possesses an underived existence? 
With what shall we compare such existence ? All other be- 
ings are derived ; and, of course, there is no object in the 
universe with which it can be compared. To define it, then, 
is beyond our reach. We approximate towards a conception 



2-1: mkaxinv; OFPBBSOW. [LETT. II. 

of it. merely by n egativ e e. We deny, for example, that the 

divine existence hafl any author or cause ; and when we 

have done this, ire have nut defined it, bat simply said that a 
certain thing does not h<-lon'_ r to it. And here ire must rest ; 
for archangels, it i< probable, cannot proceed beyond this. 
The distinction in the Godhead, I ought to say here, 

do not, and cannot, consider as a mere subject of speculation, 
which lias little or no concern with ardent piety, or the best 
hopes of the Christian. Webelieve that some of the most 
interesting and endearing exhibitions of the divine character 
are founded upon it ; and that corresponding duties are urged 
upon us. and peculiar hopee excited, and peculiar consola- 
tions administered, by it. 

In regard to this distinction, we say: It a mere dis- 

tinction <>f attributes, of relation to us. of modes of action, or 
of relation hrtiro, ,, attributes and substance or essence, so far 

they are known to us. We believe the Scriptures justify 
us in these negations. But here we leave the subject. AVe 
undertake, (at least the Trinitarians of our country with 
whom I am acquainted undertake), not at all to describe af- 
firmatierh/ the distinction in the Godhead. When you will 
give me an affirmative description of underived existence, I 
may safely engage to furnish you with one of person in the 
Trinity. You do not reject the belief of the divine self-ex- 
istence, merely because you cannot affirmatively define it ; 
neither do we of a distinction in the Godhead, beca 

cannot affirmatively define it. 

1 may ask moreover: What is the eternity of God? You 

answer by telling me, thai there never was a time when he 

did not exist, and never can be one when he will not exist 
True; but then, what was flfne, before the planetary system 
which measures it had an existence ? And what will time 
be* when these heavens and this earth shall be blotted out? 

B< tides, passing over this difficulty about time, you have only 

iriv.'ii a negai ription of Qod'a eternity ; you deny c 

tian things of him, and then aver that he ifl <l<mal. Yet be- 
eanSC you cannot a ffirm atively describe eternity, you would 



n.] i \m\'. mi n 

to believe thai I to 1 is < tomaL Why then should 
the belief of a distinction in the Godhead, because I 

cannot affirmatively define it ? 

I do not t\il. therefore, that we are aaposed justly to be 

d with mysticism and absurdity, when we admit that 

there i- a distinction in the Godhead, which we feel utterly 

unable to define. I am aware, indeed, that a writer some 

time published a piece, in a periodical work then edited 

at Cambridge, in which he laboured, with no -mall degree of 
to -how that no man can believe a proposition the 
terms of which are unintelligible, or which he does not under- 
stand. His object in doing this appears to have been, to fix 
upon those who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity the 
charge of absurdity. But it seems to me, that the whole ar- 
gument of that piece is founded on a confusion of two things 
which are in themselves very diverse, viz., terms which are 
unintelligible, and things which are und<' finable. You believe 
in the fact that the divine existence is without cause ; you 
understand the fact that God exists uncaused, but you can- 
not define underived existence. I believe on the authority 
of the Scriptures, that there is a real distinction in the God- 
head ; but I cannot define the exact nature of it. Still, the 
proposition that there is a real distinction, is just as intelligi- 
ble, as the proposition that God is self-existent. There are, 
indeed, multitudes of propositions respecting a variety of sub- 
jects, which resemble these. We affirm, for example, that 
gravitation brings a body, which is thrown into the air, down 
to the earth. The fact is altogether intelligible. The terms 
are perfectly understood, so far as they are employed to de- 
scribe this fact. But then, what is gravitation ? An affirma- 
tive definition cannot be given, which is not a mere exchange 
of synonymes. Nor can any comparison define it ; for to 
what shall we liken it? 

The mind of avery man, who is accustomed to think, will 
supply him with a multitude of propositions of this nature; 
in all of which the fact designed to be described is clear ; the 
terms so far as they describe this fact are clear ; but the sub- 

3 



MBAKING OF PERSON. [LETX.IL 

ject of i\\*> proposition, thai is the thing itself, or the agent, 
loftoerning winch the fact is asserted, is uadefinable ; and, 
excepting in regard to the fact in question, perhaps wholly 
unknown to M. 

How easy now to perplex common minds, by callii 
Mopoeitiofl unintelligible, the subject of which is merelj 
finable. In confounding things so very different, consists, as 
I apprehend, the whole ingenuity of the piece in question ; 

an ingenuity, which may excite the admiration of those who 
love the BUbtilties of dispute, hut cannot contribute much to 

illuminate the path of theological Bcien 

I have been thus particular, in my statement of this very 
difficult part of the subject, in order to prevent misapprehen- 
sion. I certainly do nut hold myself bound to vindicate? any 
of the attempted definitions of person or distinction in the 
( .odhead. at V -ast any which I have yet seen, because I do not 
and cannot adopt them. My reason for this is, that I do not 
and cannot understand them ; and to a proffered definition I 
cannot with propriety assent, still less undertake to defend it, 
until 1 do understand what it signifies. It is truly matter 
of regret to me, that some great and good men have carried 
their -peculations on this subject to such a length, that, as I 
cannot help thinking, they have bewildered themselves and 
their reader-. I would always speak with respect and ten- 
derness of such men. Still I have no hesitation in saying, 
that my mind is absolutely unable to elicit distinct and cer- 
tian ideas, from any of the proffered definitions in question 
which I have ever examined. Hay I be indulged with the 
liberty here of producing a few examples? In this way, I 
Shall be able more readily to illustrate and establish what I 
have JUSJ said. 

Lot mr begin with Terlullian, who flourished about A. D. 
2<><>. In his book against Prazeas (eh- 2) he says: u This 
perversity [viz. of Praxeas] thinks itself to be in possession 

of pure truth, while it supposes that we are to believe in one 
Qodf not otherwise than if we make the Father. Son, and 
Boly Cihost, the sell" same : as if all were not Oft*, while all 



i. ii.] mi w \. 27 

of one, viz. by a unity of subetmftee j and still, the myi 

omy which distributes unity into a Tr i m&fy k^b» 
served, marking out [distinguishing] Father, Son, and Holy 
Grbotfc There arc three, net in ooodition but in rank ; not 
in < but form ; not in power but in kind ; but they are 

substance, condition, and ]>o\vn\ for there 18 (MM God 
from whom those ranks, and forms and kinds, are reckoned 

by the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." 

A little farther on he says: "Whatever, therefore, the 
of the Word (Logos) is, I call him a PB&SOIT, and 
defend the application of this name to him; and while I 
acknowledge the Son, I maintain that he is second from the 
Father. . . . The third is the Spirit from God and the Son, 
lie fruit from the stalk is the third from the root; a sluice 
from the river [the third] from the fountain ; the point from 
a ray of light [the third] from the sun. So the Trinity pro- 
Is, by interlinked and connected grades, from the Father." 
In Cap. 0, he says : " They (the Trinity) are not separate 
from each other, although the Father may be said to be di- 
verse from the Son and the Spirit." 

And again : u We are baptized into the persons [of the 
Trinity] severally, by the use of their several names." 



»* 



* ,: Perversitas hoc (sc. Praxeae) se existimat mcram veritatcm 
Mere. <lum unicum Deum non alias putat credendum, quam si ip- 
sum eundemque et Patrem, et 1* ilium, et Spiritum Sanctum dicat, quasi 
nou sic quoque onus sit omnia, dam ex uno omnia, per substantias seili- 
cet un'iia'i m ; et nihilomiuus custodiatur oUovo/uac sacramentum, qua3 
unitatem in Trxnitatem disponit. tres dirigeus, Patrem, Filium, et 
Spiritum Sanctum. Tres autcm non statu sed gradu ; nee substantia 
sed forma : nee potentate Bed specie : unius autcm substantia, et status, 
et po <jiiia anna J)eus ex quo et gradus isti. et forma?, et species 

in nomine Patrem. Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum deputantur." 

— - Quae umpie, ergo, substantia Scnnonis (rov Xayov} sit, ilium dico 
n;i: Lndicoj ci dum Filium agnosc lum a pa- 

tre defendo. / -r Spiritus a Deo et Filio, sicut tertius a radice 

fructUS ex frutioe; a fonte rirua ex rluininc; a sole apex ex radio. Ita 
Trimtas per consertos et connexn- L r radu< a Patre decurrifc 

— ; - Inseparati tamen ab alterutro, et>i dicatur alium esse Patrem, 
alium Filium et Si)irituin. 

— " Ad singula Nomina, in personas singulas tingimur." 



28 mi \.\iv. m im-:kson. [lktt. ii. 

Ii h prop r to observe here, how plainly and definitely the 

IPQtdi person and Trinity are applied by Tertullian to the 

ad; which contradicts the very confident affirmati 
of many writers, that these terms were merely an invention 

of later ages and of schola-tic di\ inity. I may add, that 
the Familiar and habitual use which Tertullian makes of them, 

proves that they were commonly understood, or at least com- 
monly used in the church, at a very early period, and in ivf- 

crenee to the veiy distinction in the Godhead which is the 
present subject of discussion, [believe the writings of this 
father afford the earliest specimen, now extant, of the techni- 
cal nse (if I may bo speak) of the word Trinity and Pert 
His object cannot he mistaken. His antagonist, Praxeas, 
denied that there existed any distinction in the Godhead, or 
any except a mere verbal one. Tertullian means t<> assert 
the existence of a threefold distinction ; and to designate this 
he uses the word Trinity. To signify that this distinction is 

'/. and nut merely nominal, he uses the word person* The 
Latin word permmOf which he employs, means, when ap- 
plied to 0M //, that quality, state, or condition, whereby man 
differs from a brute, or whereby one man differs from another. 
Analogically with this meaning, Tertullian applies the word 
to the Godhead, i. e. to tin.' distinctions which he supposed to 
exist in it, and which he regarded as real. 

But to explain Tertulliaifs similitudes, so frequently copied 
in after;, j« ^. ig more than I shall undertake. Who does not 
Bee, that all similitudes drawn from created, limited, depend* 
cut beings or things, must be utterly inadequate to illustrate 
the mode iii which an uncreated, infinite, and omnipresent 
Being exists? What is even the attempt at explanation, but 
" darkening * counsel by words without knowledge?" J be- 
lieve with Tertullian in a threefold distinction in the Ciod- 
bead ; but I believe simply the fact of a Trinity, and do not 

venture t<> make any attempt at explanation, by comparison 
with material objects. 
In like manner. Origan, who began to flourish bel 

1 1 rtullian'a d reprehends those ik who do not attribute 



IJ.1T. II.] Ml WIN 29 

pers tatv) to the Word or I " and shortly after 

he adds : M /'/ rro<rr<tcref£) we acknowledge, 

tin 4 Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost;" (OomiiL in 

Johan. p. 24.) I adduce this passage, however, only to sliow 
how early the use of the word f \s applied to the dis- 

tinction in the Godhead, came to be employed by Christians, 
an«l not to prove the strict orthodoxy of Origen. 

Have the venerable Council of Nice held A. I). 825, suc- 

ded any better than Tertullian, in tluir attempts to define 
the specific relation of the Son to the Father? Their words 
arr : ""We believe in one God, the Father almighty, the 
maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord, 
JestM Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten of the Fa- 
ther, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, 
light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made, of 
the same substanee with the Father, by whom all things were 
made/'* 

This Council believed, no doubt, in the eternal generation 
of the Son ; and meant to affirm, by the peculiar phraseology 
which they have here exhibited, that one real and essential 
distinction between the Father and the Son consists in the 
fact of the eternal generation of the latter. Arius affirmed, 
that the Son was begotten (by which he meant produced or 
created) in time. The special object of the Nicene creed was, 
to express dissent from, and opposition to, the opinions of Ali- 
us and his partisans as to this particular. In order to do this, 
the Nicene fathers maintained that the generation of the Son 
was eternal. 

For myself, I must confess that I am unable to attach any 
definite meaning to the phrase eternal generation. Or, to 
speak more explicitly, I cannot attach any definite meaning 

* UiGTtiojUfjv tir tva Otov, ~ar.<'(>a, TzarroKpurnpa, ttuvtcjv oparuv re 
kol aopurur TTonjr^v ■ kcil ek ha KvpiOV 'h/Govv XptGTov, tov vlqv tov 
0eoi>, tov yewff&evra Ik tov TrciTpbc fiovoyevrj, tovt' Igtlv Ik ttj$ ovaiag 
tov Jrarpof, dsdv £k deov, (pur Ik 6iotoc, deov a/.7/$tvuv Ik $eov a?>r/&i- 
vov, yevv7i&£vTa ov TzoirjdivTa, ouoovctov t£> TraTpi • 6C ov tu izdvTa 
tyevETo, k.t/a. — Svmb. Xicaenum. 
3* 



30 NI< I M ri:i.l.l». [LETT. IT. 

which consists with a tolerable explanation of these word-, 
without virtually conceding thai Chris! ia not God tupreme. 
After all thai has been said, or can be .-aid. about the mysteri- 
manner of Christ's generation, and in fact conceding for 
the moment thai all which has been said in respect to it is 
true it -till remains a thing BO plain as to be incapable of 
reasonable denial, that the generation of the Son in bis (Urine 
nature, however mysterious or incomprehensible, imports at 
least a derivation in some sense or other. It is impossible to 
deny this, unless all regard to tin proper meaning of words is 
laid aside. And if the Logo*, i. e. Christ in his di vine nature) 

Was derived, then he can be neither self-extstent nor Nfc 

Indeed, the Mrenuous and consistent advocates of 
the 1 Xieene creed do not admit the ttlf-exietenct and the inde- 
i the Son. Taking it for granted that sons/tip is 
applicable to the did no nature, (and the Nicene creed is 
plainly built on this), and that it must of necessity imply de- 
lation in some sense, or at least with respect to that nature, 
they must of course, in order to be consistent, deny that Christ 
El KV*6&Bo$ or self-existent; and consequently, if still con- 
sistent, they must maintain that he is not independent. 

With this view of the Xieene fathers I cannot here enter into 
Controversy ; but it may justly be demanded of me, in present 
circum-tanccs, to be explicit as to my own views of this doc- 
trine. Very briefly then would I say, that, instructed as I 
have been in iv»p< et to the nature of true Godhead, it is im- 
posBible for me to predicate this quality of any being who is 
neither tdf~existent nor independent These are the ulti- 
mate, highest, plainest, and most certain of all the discretive 
attribute^ of Godhead, i. e. attributes which separate the di- 
vine Being from all other possible beings. If the Son pos- 

H not these attribute-, then he can be only a frtfe fafce- 

po£, i. <•. a God of secondary rank j and so Origen and others 

have actually named him. The ancient lathers, many of 
them nurtured in the bosom of a heathen religion which ad- 
mitted the endless generation and multiplicity of gods, felt 
much less difficulty in believing in the generation of a nature 



IT. 11.] i. CREED. 81 

which was in their view truly divine, than we of the present 
day must feel 3 all the discussions which havr taken 

plac< il the true > I nature of the Godhead. Ap- 

plying the p of Christ t<> his divine nature, and over- 

looking the declarations on this Bubjeci of a celestial interpre- 
ts r (Luke 1: 35), they felt themselves bound to maintain a 
leration of the divine nature iA' the Son. while they still 

xplicitly avowed their belief in hi- true divinity ; for 
v tz \hov uhftivoVy i. e. very God of very God, 

in ly implies this. I believe that what they substan- 
tially aimed at, is a doctrine of Scripture. But I cannot sub- 
scribe to their terminology, for the reasons stated above. If 
their words are to be interpreted by any of the common laws 
ofe ~. they must import a derivation and dependence of 

the Son, in his divine nature. But how can a being be re- 
garded as supreme God, who is neither self-existent nor in- 
dependent ? Still, if the Nicene fathers failed as to proper 
modes of expression, this should not be put to the account of 
the Bible. John says not one word of the Logos, as such, 
which would lead us, in the way of simple interpretation, to 
conclude that in this nature he is either derived or dependent ; 
and John is the only New Testament writer who has ex- 
pressly treated of the Logos, and disclosed to us his original 
state. 

The Nicene creed then is not, I must confess, sufficiently 
orthodox for me. I believe that Christ is " God over all, 
and blessed for ever ;" that he is " the true God and eternal 
life ;" that " he made all things ;" and that " he who did 
make all things is God." A frees dtvzeoo^ — a God of sec- 
ondary rank — seems to me altogether incompatible with the 
true spiritual doctrine of scriptural Christianity. Yet I am 
far from thinking that the Nicene fathers designed to assert 
and maintain the actual inferiority of the Son; although 
they do so strenuously maintain his generation or derivation. 
We must not scan their metaphysical notions by the philoso- 
phy of the present day. I agree with them in their most im- 
portant position, (i. e. in what I deem to be their most impor- 



lMlM.in r.CTToX OF LANGUAGE. [LETT. tt. 

tant One), vi/. that the Son is opootHftO? up muni, and of 

eofl thnffrtfog, i. e. of the same substance with the 

rfier, and therefore true God. You will not allege, that 
their metaphysical views <>t' the connection between Father 
and Son, (»!• their mode of Stating them, are fairly to be put 
to the accoillll of the Bible, or of the orthodox Christianity of 
the present day. They may have erred in respect to both 
these, and -till not he chargeable with any intention to deny 
the proper divinity of Christ ; much less with any intention 
to mislead Others, or even to substitute their own speculations 
in the room of those views which the sacn d writer- maintain. 
J Have one thing more to say, in relation to this whole sub- 
ject, which I may as well say here ; for, if correct, it ought to 
have an important hearing on modes of expression in relation 
to the whole matter before us. Jt is this, viz. the imperfec- 
tion of lang ua ge is such, that words can scarcely be employed 
with regard to some parts of the subject under discussion, 
without liability to be misunderstood. Every word is a sym- 
bol of some idea of our minds : and all our ideas are the re- 
sult of sensation, consciousness, and reflection. Now the es- 
sential nature and relations of the divine Being are not within 
the circle of either of these sources of ideas and words. Of 
course, no part of language was originally formed in reference 
to expressing the internal constitution (so to speak) of the 
Godhead. A secondary and tropical sense, therefore, in a 
greater or less degree, must of necessity be attached to all the 

word- which we employ respecting the essence of the ( lodhead. 

The sober inquirer, who is fully cognizant of this, will never 
think of believing or denying what the mere literal sense of 
woid- thus employed would convey. lie must not believe in 
theism, because Trinity and three persons in the Godhead 
are spoken of in his creed ; nor should he insist that such 
words necessarily infringe upon the unity of the Godhead: 

fer it ifl only by taking the words in a literal sense, that he 
can make this out It ifl here we may well say: " The letter 
kill, th, but the Spirit maketh alive." 

A familiar ( sample may illustrate this. John says : " The 



IT. II.] IM: .1 A.GK. 

nth ( - 'in the time of Ariua downwards, 

it 1. id(1 asked with an air bespeaking confi- 

dence that no satisfactory a ild be given: 'How 

Word be with God, unless be was a being different 
i him ? -V being who is with another, cannQt be that 
1 I would reply, provided two 

things are first made out, viz. first, thai the two beings men- 
tion shown to be separate or different beings, in the 
usual g word- ; and secondly, when it is made 
it the word with has the Bame sense hero as it 
se a similar assertion were made of two be- 
3 known to be distinct But who can establish either of 
these!" From the tenor of the context in John, it is plain 
enough that the Logo- is not an inferior being; for lie is rep- 
V, and as the Creator of all things. If so, then 
he has an underived existence himself; and therefore must be 
U in his nature. What then is it for such a Spirit to 
be with God ? This cannot be made out from any notion of 
ours about mere physical proximities or nearness of material 
objects. . The nearest that we can come to the meaning of 
the word with here, seems to be that which is expressed by 
the phrase conjuactissimus cum Deo, i. e. most intimately con- 
nected with God. But why should John say the thing in 
question at all ? My own apprehension is, that the need of 
saying it lay in some Gnostic errors of the day, which af- 
firmed of the Aeon Logos, a state of existence entirely sepa- 
rate from its original source. As John felt himself obliged 
to employ the same name (/.o;'o>), he took care duly to dis- 
tinguish his Logos from that of the Gnostics. Mewed in this 
light, the word with designates that which is adverse to the 
position of the errorists in question, rather than something 
itive and affirmative in its nature. At all events, the 
word with stands in such a connection, that none of its ordi- 
nary and local meanings can be attached to it, in consistency 
with the true nature of the subject to which it has relation. 

So is it with a multitude of objections raised against the 
doctrine of the Trinity, from the mere forms of expression 



34 IMPERFECTION OF LANGUAGE. [LETT. IT. 

employed in the New Testament. Their efficacy or validity, 

rtiuns. depends entirely on interpreting language, as 
applied to the Godhead) according to its ordinary meaning 

when applied to other things. This eannot be any more cor- 
rect, tlian it i< to say, with the Bwedenborgi an s, that God has 
a \ bible material form, because man is said to be made in his 

huge, and because the ordinary partfl and powers of a hu- 
man body are ascribed to him. The nature of a being must 
always direct the sense of words which are employed to 
de86iibe him. We concede this, in the interpretation of all 
other books; and why should we deny it. when the meaning 
■ripiural language is the subject of examination ? 

But 1 must refrain from further remarks here, and remit 
the reactor to the Supplementary Note, added to the present 
edition, and in>er(ed at the end of Letter n. In this, 1 have 
attempted an outline of the yrouitds of dispute in regard to 
the nature and person of Christ, in ancient times, and a sum- 
mary account of attempts in modern times to define the word 
JMT5"//. as applied to the Godhead. I have added to these 
such reflections a> the nature of the case seemed to require. 
I would hope that what has cost me very serious labour, may 
not be without some value to the reader. 

One word more, at present, in respect to the Council of Nice. 
The Nicene fathers seem to have intended to make out 
something like an (tjlir/notire or positive definition of the dis- 
tinction between the Father and the Son, by asserting his 

mal generation. That they have failed to do this in a 

: -factory manner, is snlliciently evident. But I eannot 
think that they are fairly exposed to a charge ot designed in- 
trusion into the mysteries of the Godhead, or even of intend- 
ing to introduce useless and unmeaning words into their 
Symbol. 

The Council of Constantinople, reckoned as the second 
ecumenical Council (A. J). 581), in their synodic address to 
the rhmvl v, that "it is the most ancient faith, and 

agreeable to baptism, to believe in the name of the Father, 

i, and Holy Ghost; and of course one godhead, power, 



LETT. II.] COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE. 

and substance of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is be- 
lieved, and equal dignity and ooeternal dominion in ihi 
most perfect hypostases, or three perfect persons i 10 that 
neither the pest of Sabellhlfl shall have place, which confounds 
the persons, i. e. tak< a away their distinctive peculiarity 
nor the blasphemy of the Kunomians, Arians, and opposeiv 

of the Holy Spirit prevail, which destroys the substance, or 

nature, or godhead, by adding to the uncreated. eonsubstan- 
tial, and coeternal Trinity something of posterior origin, or of 
a cr nid heterogeneous nature."* 

This Council liavc left somewhat undefined the manner in 
which they mean to use the words, M three most perfect hy- 
postases, or three perfect persons ;" excepting that they have 
avowed their belief in one godhead, potver, and substance. 
A question might be raised, whether they really mean nu- 
merical unity of substance and power in the persons of the 
Godhead, or only equality of rank and homogeneousness of 
substance. The spirit of the times, and the state of philoso- 
phy at that period, would favor the latter supposition ; 
although I do not think that it can be made out with certain- 
ty. One thing however is clear ; which is, that they aim at 
vindicating the unity of the Godhead and the equality of the 
hypostases or persons of the Trinity, without sacrificing the 
distinctive attributes of these hypostases. My belief is, that 
the main thing which they mean to assert is true ; but they 
have left a little too indefinite what they meant by the dis- 
tinctions in the Godhead. There can be no doubt that they 

* — ttcgtevelv eig to bvojia tov r:aTpog, tov viov, nal tov Trviv/iaroc 
uylov ■ 6e/*ad*}j ^eottjtoc re nal Swufieug nal ovaiaq \iiaq tov TxaTpbq, 
tov viov, nai tov TzvevfiaTor aylov ttlctevo/ievijCj dfiOTLfiov te Trjg a^iaq 
nal (Xwaddiov t7,c paotXeiag kv Tpio~l te/.eiotutciic vkggtcigiv, yy>w 

TpUJ r 7Cpoacj~Oir • tjr firjTE TTjV 2d 1;//'-)V v6<TOV xC)pav AaSsiV, 

'cvyxEOnevuv tuv vttogtugeov, ijyovv 16iot//tcjv uvaipovfiEvuv • \ii(Te T!,v 
'Evvofiiui'cjv, 'ApEiuvuv, Kal TlvevfiaTOftaxav r/) i beiv, 

Tf/C OVmai\ // T/,r oirjff.tr, 7/ T7/C \}EOT7/TC)C TfllVf Hi Ti) UK7inT(,), KCII 

OfioovGLL), Kal €rvvau(Vi(.) Tpl&dl fJU l KriGT7)r, ?/ iTEpo- 

ovcriov (pijGEuc kirayovfiEvyr. — Theod. Hist. Ecc. V. 9. 



3G DEFINITIONS [LETT. II. 

meant t<> assert, in the strongest terms, their antipathy to 

•ellianism and Arianism. 

Let u- now leave antiquity, and glance for a moment at 
lame of the similar attempts in modern times. The celebra- 
ted Leibnitz, was requested by Loefler, who had underfc 

to refute the writing- of a certain English Antitrinitarian, to 
give him an affirmative definition of the , in the ( 

head. He sent for answer the following: " Several pen 

in an absolute substance numerically the same, signify B0V- 
eral, particular, intelligent Mibstances essentially related."" 
( )n further consideration la 1 abandoned this, and sent a second 

answer; which was, that "several persons, in an absolute 

substance numerically the same, mean relative and incom- 
municable modes of subsisting*"! 

IfLeibnitf actually and definitely understood this, I must 
believe that he was a good master of metaphysics. Still if 
lie had added to the latter clause the word uiidcfinahh or in- 
ffiaUs, his definition might be regarded as being as good 
M the nature of the case admits. I should also prefer to leave 
out the word inco mmum ccMe ; inasmuch as we cannot be quite 
certain of the fact which it asserts, (provided person implies 
neither esse fitted essence or attribute), and because many 
Trinitarians have regarded and defined personality as = mo- 
dus subsist* luli, and as something which might be communi- 
cated. In fact, Leibnitz himself appears not to have I 
entirely satisfied with his own attempt at definition; for, not 
long after, he wrote to a friend as follows: "We must -ay. 
that there are relation* in the divine substance, which dis- 
tinguish the j>< rso/ts, since these persons cannot be absolute 
Substances. But we must aver, too, that these relations are 
s"bs?rt, tfi'i/. At least we must say, thai the divine persons 
are not the same concrete, under different denominations or 

* Plures persona, In eadem aumero substantia absolute, significant 
plum mbstantiafl singulares, intelligentes, essentialiter relatrraa. 

t Phires personae, in eadem numero substantia absoluta, intelfigun- 
tur per modoa subsistendi relatiros, incommunicabiles. 



d.] DF.FIN1 I ! 

relation i man may be, at the same time both i poet 

aiul an orator. \\ e tDUSl Bay, moreover, that the three per- 

not as absolute sabstaneei as the whole/ 1 * 

With a> little success, did that somewhat original thinker 
and reasooer, the celebrated Toellner of Frankfort, labour to 
define the distinction in question, " It i- certain, 1 be* 

'•that we must conceive, as coexisting in God, tin rnal 

and really different anion-, the action of operation, of idea, 
and of the desire of all possible good within and without him. 
•• Three really different actions, coexisting from eternity, 
essarily presuppose three really different and operative 
games It is thus, through the aid of reason quickened by 
the Scriptures, we come to know, that the power, the under- 
standing, and the will, in God are not merely three faculties, 
but three distinct energies, i.e. three- substances."t 

* Remarques sur lc livre d' an Antitrinitaire Aii-!<>:^. j>. 26. I can- 
not think, however, that he has added much explicitness to his former 
statement. What are relations substantial ' He must mean, as it seems 
to me, r< /at /'<»is thai /» rtam to substance ; for the substantiality of a relation, 
in any other sense than this, is not intelligible to me. The last clause, 
" that the three persons are not a- absolute substances as the whole.*" has 
added nothing to the perspicuity of the matter. The implication seems 
to he. that the three persons are so many substances, hut not ahsolute. 
Now what i- i '■< in God, which is not absolute '. And if numeri- 

iitij of substance i< predicable of the Godhead, how can diversity of 
substances he attributed to him? Personality, which implies diversity, 
cannot well he predicated of essential substance or of essential attribui 
for these are numerically one. Ili^ former definition, therefore, comes 
nearer to the mark. See Sup}). Note, at the end of this Letter. 

t Es 1st gewiss, dass wir uns in Gott drey ewige wahrhaftig von 
einander unterschiedene Handlungen neben einander, gedenken mUs- 
die Handlung des Wirkens, der VorstelhniL:. and dv^ 15eLiehrens 
alles moglichen Guten in und ausser ihm. 

Drey wahrhaftig verschiedene Handlungen, zugleich von Ewigkek 
her neben einander, erfordern audi von Ewigkeit her drey von einander 
wahrhaftig verschiedene handelnde Grande. Und so rerkennen wir 
mit der durch die Schrifl erweckten Vernunft, dass die Kraft, der Ver- 
stand. und der Wille. in Gott nicht drey blosse Vermogen, sondeni drey 
von einander versehiedene Kriiftc. da- i-t drey Suh.-tan/.en sind. [ Vet* 
mischte Aufsatze. B. i. p. 81. edit. 1769.] 

4 



38 DEFINITIONS©! I [LETT. &• 

Thia does not, indeed, seem to be very intelligible. But 
still, the baria of thia attempt at definition has something in 
it deserving of notice. It hi simply this, \i/. that time 
noflofl of development in the Godhead, presuppo 
pendent diversities, in some i or other, in the Bubstanoe 

or attribntes of the Divinity- 

I will produce hut one instance more ; which is found in 
the works of the celebrated Leasing, himself far enough 
(rem h< Lng a theologian, but sometimes inclined to speculate 
about subjects of difficulty. "Must not God," says he, 
"have the most perfect idea of himself? That is, an idea 
which comprises everything that is comprised in himself. 
Could this however be the case, if of his necessary reality, as 
of his other attributes, there were merely an idea, merely a 
possibility ( This possibility exhausts the being of his other 
attributes; but can it exhaust his necessary reality?* Con- 

[Uently, God can either have no perfect idea of himself ; or 
this perfect idea is even as necessarily actual as he himself 

If now Le8siitg himself understood his own problem, I 
think that I hazard nothing in declaring my conviction, that 
he was the only man who has been able to understand it. 

I have not produced these instances, merely in order to 
satisfy you, that all attempts of this nature are and must be 

* I have rendered the German Literally here; bctl lam not certain 
that I understand the meaning. I suppose < thaust meat quab to 

miiij ends to Uu wkolt of, represents Uu whole. Quicunque melius 

intelligit, corriget 

Muss Gott aicht die vollstandigste Vorstellung von sich selbel ha- 
ben ! <l. i- eiae Vorstellnng in der Bich aUes befindet was in ihm Belbst 
i-t. Worde Bich aber alles in Lhr finden was in ihm selbsl 1st, wennanch 
vmji seiner nothwendigen VVOrklichkeit, so wie von seinen Qbrigen 
nschaiten, sich bios eine Vorstellung, Bich bios eine Moglichkeil 
fende ! Diese Moglicbkeil erschopfl das Wesen seiner Qbrigen Eigen- 
Bchaften; aberauch seiner nothwendigen Wurklichkcil ' Folglich,kann 
entweder ( Jotl gar keine vollstandige Vorstellnng von aich Belbst haben . 
r diese Vorstellung 1st eben so aothwendig vrorklich als er Belbel Lst 
[Die £ M L 78' 



T.1TT. II.] IONS i»| I 39 

fruitl< ss. You doubtless ne< such proof. I have pro- 

duced them for t\\<> r . to justify myself, in 

ood measure, for not attempting a definition in which 
led; the second, to show, that notwith- 

iding all the fruitless attempts at definition which have 

d made, and notwithstanding the varieties of method in 
which men have chosen to make these attempts, yet, lor tub* 
there i- a tar greater unanimity of opinion among 
Trinitarians, than von and your friends seem to be willing 
to concede. That there is a great variety in the modes by 
which an attempt at definition or illustration U made, is in- 

1 clear enough. But this does not prove bo much an ac- 
tual variety of views as it illustrates the difficult nature of 
the undertaking. With my present feelings I am disposed 
to look upon all attempts of this nature with regret. I expect 
no light from them. But I am far from accusing such at- 
tempts in general of any ill design; and surely I would not 
treat them with contempt.* 

Patient investigation and candour will lead one to believe, 
as it seems to me, that the iking aimed at in the main ivas, 
simply to assert the idea of a distinction in the Godhead. To 
do this with the more success, as the writers hoped, some of 
them endeavoured to describe affirmatively the nature of that 
distinction. But here they have all failed. But how can 
this prove, that there is actually a great variety of opinion 
among Trinitarians, in regard to the substance of the thing 
in question, merely because endeavours to define this thing 
have been unsuccessful, and have produced a great variety 
in the attempted methods of illustration ? I cannot help feel- 
ing that this matter is sometimes misrepresented, and that 
very generally it is imperfectly understood. 

But quitting this topic, permit me now to ask, whether 
you feel yourself able, by any argument a priori, to prove to 
me that the doctrine of the Trinity is inconsistent with itself, 

* See the subj< ns a- further illustrated, in the Supp. Note 

at the end of the present Letter, 



40 DEFINITIONS OF PERSON. [LETT. II. 

or (as you aver) " subversive of the doctrine of divine unity," 
s&d therefore untrue ? We say thai the divine essence and 
attribui numerically one, bo far as they ate known to 

ii- : hut that there are in the Godhead some real distinction 
for example, between tin- Father and the Son. (1 omit the 
eonsideration of the Holy Spirit here, because your Sermon 

merely hints at this subject* and because all serious difficul- 
ties in respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, are essentially 
connected with proving or disproving the divinity of Christ). 
F abjure, for myself, all attempts to < stinctions; 

I admit them simply ox c fact ; and this, on the authority of 
(Urine revelation. Now how can you prove, that a distinction 
does not exist in the Godhead? I acknowledge that the 
want of evidence in the Scriptures to establish the fact, would 
1m- a sufficient reason for rejecting it. But we are thus far 
making out a statement of the subject, and answering objec- 
tions that are urged, in an a priori way, or independently of 
the Scriptures. The proof which the New Testament ex- 
hibits, we are hereafter to examine. How then, I repeat it, 
are you to show that we believe in a sclf-contmt fiction, or in 
an impossibility ? If the distinction in question cannot be 
proved, independently of the Scriptures, (and most readily I 
acknowledge it cannot), it is equally certain that it cannot be 
disproved in an u priori way. In order to prove that such a 
distinction contradicts the divine unity, must you not be able, 
first of all, to tell what that distinction is, and then what the 
divine unity is? Can you do either? 

Will you allow me to dwell, for a moment, on this point of 
1 >/. It is clear, as I think, that the unity of God cannot 
be Satisfactorily proved without revelation. It may perhaps 
be rendered probable. Then we must depend, as it would 
seem, on scriptural proof lor the thorough establishment of 
thi- doctrine. But have the Scriptures anywhere told US 
what the divine unity is? Will you produce the pas 
The oneness of God they often assert But this they assert, 
always, in opposition to the idols of the heathen — to the poty- 
theism of tic Gentiles — to the gods superior and inferior 



IT. TI.] I \1 1 J -l>. 41 

which the heathen worshipped. In BO other way have the 

defined the oneni ss of the Deity* What then is 

w, in the uncreated, infinite, eternal B In created 

an<l Unite obje< . b distinct perception ot' what wo 

■MB by it : but can i be both jus! and adequate 

ntatives of the win i I? Familiar as the Baser" 

tion is, in yoor conversation and in your Sermons, thai bob 

is onk, can you give me any other definition of this onen 

except a negative one? You deny plurality of it ; you say 

1 i> bul one, and not two, nor moiv. All this is mere 

gation. In what, I ask, does the divine unity actually and 
consist ? God surely has different and various 
faculties and powers. Is he not almighty, omniscient, omni- 
present, holy, just, good ? Does he not act differently, i. e. va- 
riously, both in the natural and in the moral world ? Unity, 
therefore, is not an universal sameness of attribute or of ac- 
tion. Does it consist, then, appropriately in his essence? 
But what is the essence of God ? And how can you assert 
that his unity consists appropriately and solely in this, unless 
you know what his essence is, and so be able to judge, 
whether oneness can be more certainly predicated of this than 
of bis attributes and action- ? 

Your answer to all this is : ' The nature of God's essence 
is beyond my reach ; I cannot define it. I can approach to 
a definition of the divine unity, only by negatives.' In other 
words, you deny the numerical plurality of God ; or you say, 
that there are not two or more essences, omnisciences, om- 
nipotences, etc. But here all investigation, at least all know- 
ledge, is at an end. Is it possible to show what it is, which 
constitutes the internal nature of the divine essence or attri- 
butes? To show how these are related to each other, or 
what internal distinctions exist ? Of all this revelation says 
not one word; and certainly the book of nature gives no in- 
struction concerning it. The assertion then that God is one, 
means, when fairly and intelligently understood, nothing 
more positively than that he is numerically one, i e. it simply 
denies polytheism. Beyond this it can never reach. The 

4* 






-12 l MI V OF <.<'I). [lktt. II. 

man who makes this assertion, doe- not pretend that ho h 
made an analysis of (he divine substance or essence, and proi i <1 
in this way. (if I may so speak), a unity of constituent mate- 
rial. Thai God i- on*) does not mean that there is but one 
simple element in his nature, (for this wo do not and cannot 
know), but that there is in him only one intelligent agent 
But how does Buch a position prove, or how can it prove, 
that there may not be, or that there are not, distinctions in 
the Godhead, either in regard to attributes or in respect 
to essence, the nature of which is unknown to us, and 
the actual existence of which is proved by the authority of 
the Scriptures only? When Unitarians therefore inquire: 
What is that distinction in the Godhead in which you believe ? 
We answer, that we do not profess to understand what it is ; 
we do not undertake to define it positively or affirmatively. 
We can approximate toward a definition of it, only by ncr/a- 
tircs. We deny that the Father is, in all respects, the same 
a- the Son ; we deny that the Holy Spirit is, in all respects, 
the same as either the Father or the Son. AVe rest [he/act, 
that a distinction actually exists, solely upon the basis of 
revelation. 

In respect to principle, then, what more difficulty lies in 
the way of believing in a threefold distinction of the God- 
head, than in believing in the divine unity? 

I am certainly willing to allow r , that the evidences of the 
divine unity in the New Testament are sufficient But I 
may be permitted to suggest, here, that in my view, the ]>as- 
s(f>/ ting it arc considerably fewer in number, than the 

pas$age$ which assert or imply that Christ is truly divine* I 
cannnl bat think that the frequent assertions of your Sermon, 
and of Unitarians in general, with regard to this subject, are 
very erroneous ; that they are made at hazard, and without 
a diligent and faithful comparison of the number of texts in 
the New Testament which respect the divine unity, and the 
number of those which concern the divinity of the Saviour. 
Alter all, to what purpose is it, that so great a multitude 
text- should be required in order to prove the divinity of 



r. ii.] im iv OF <i(»i). 43 

Christ, by those who I >s to do, that the 

decisions of the Scriptun of dithie authority? The 

text, fairly made oal by the laws of exegesis, 

uthoritative as th«( of a thousand. Would a law a 

thousand tinn - ited, have any more txuthority attached 

Ii kin consequence of tl. tition? It might be better 

lained, by the repetition in different connections; but its 

'v would be uniformly the Bame, 
But to return from this digression ; suppose I should affirm 
that two subjeets A and B are numerically identical in re- 

1 to what may be called X, but diverse, or distinct, in re- 

unething else called Y; is there any absurdity or 

contradiction in this affirmation? I hope I shall not, by 

making this supposition, be subjected to the imputation of 

endeavouring to prove the doctrine of the Trinity by the 

nee of algebra; for my only object in proposing this 
statement is, to illustrate the answer that we may make to a 
very common question, which Unitarians put us : " How can 
three be one, and one three ?" In no way, I readily answer, 
provided the one and the three both relate to the same speci- 
fic thing, and in the same respect. " How then is the doc- 
trine of the Trinity in Unity to be vindicated?'' In a way 
I would reply, which is not at all embarrassed by these, or 
by any of the like, questions. We do not maintain that the 
Godhead is tiiuki: in the same respects that it is one, but the 

> j rse. In regard to X, (if I may resort once more to this 
mode of illustration), we maintain a numerical unity; in re- 
gard to Y, we maintain a threefold distinction. I repeat it: 
We maintain simply the fact that there is such a distinction ; 
and we do this, only on scriptural authority. We do not pro- 
fess to understand specifically in what the distinction consists, 
nor that we are able to define it. 

Will you not concede, now, that there is some reason for 
complaint on our part, that, from the time in which Tertul- 
lian maintained the doctrine of the Trinity against Praxeas 
down to the present hour, the views and statements of Trini- 



44 IMTY Of <.<»!>. [LETT. II. 

taiians, in regard to this subject, should have been so fre- 
quently misunderstood or misrepresented? 

I have dwelt sufficiently on my statement of the doctrine 
of the Trinity, and on the difficulties that lie in the way of 
proving this statement to be erroneous or contradictory. 
Before I proceed to the next topic, I will merely mention, in 
a brief way, two of the most formidable objections to our 
views which I have seen, and which were adduced by two 
men, who must be reckoned among the most intelligent that 
have embraced the cause of Unitarianism. The iirst is from 
FaustUfl Socinus, and runs thus: 

k * Xo one is so stupid) as not to see that these things are 
contradictory, that our God, the creator of heaven and earth, 
should be 0fM onlij in number, and yet be three, each of which 
is our God. For as to what they affirm, that our God is one 
in number, in respect to his essence, but threefold in regard 
to persons ; here again they affirm things which are self-con- 
tradictory, since two or three persons cannot exist, where 
there is numerically only one individual essence, and to con- 
stitute more than one person, more than one individual es- 
sence is required. For what is person, but a certain individ- 
ual, intelligent essence ? Or in what way, I pray, does one 
person differ from another, unless by the diversity of his indi- 
vidual or numerical essence? .... This implies, that the di- 
viie ceil numerically one only, yet there is more than 

])< rson ; although the divine essence which is numerically 
one, and the divine person, are altogether identical."* (Opp. 
torn. i. p. 697.) 

* Nemo est tain Btolidus, qui qoe \ ideat, pugnare base inter so. ilium 
Drum D08tmm coeli terraeque creatorem esse unum tantum in numero, 
et tames tres esse, quorum anusquisque -it Hie Deus aoster. Nam quod 
aiunt unum qnidem esse numero Deum, sed ratione essentia©, trinum 
reti i ratione peraouarum : rursus lii<- sibi mvioem repugnantia loquuntur, 
cum foes wl ctiam duae personae esse oequeant,ubi est una tantum nu- 
mero live indi vidua essentia, et ad pluresuna persona constituendaa plu- 
etiam una individtue essentise requirantur. Nam (jui<l aliud persons 
[nam qnaadam indmdua intelligens essentia ' Ant qua potissimum 
ratione diveras est persona alia ab alia, nisi drrersitate indiyiduse rive 



I T. II.] I\I Y\ • !>. 19 

Here, however, it is obvious that the whole weigh! of the 

jection, lies in an assumed, and (I may add) errooeoasj ate 

n and - Socinua attaches to them a 

material and human sense, one which enlightened Trinitari- 

S do not admit. How then can Trinitarians bo charged 
!i Inconsistencies, in propositions which they do not make, 
or which at least they do no! design to make? 

Of the same tenor with the objection of Socinus, is the ob- 

tion mentioned by the famous Tollner, (tbeol. I 'ntersu- 
chungen, 1>. I. p. 29), which, to save room. I shall merely 
translate, without subjoining the original "The most eon- 
rable objection," says he, [against the doctrine of the 
Trinity] "is this, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are 
each a particular substance endowed with understanding ; and 
at the same time, neither of them is said to have his separate 
being, his separate understanding, his separate will, his sepa- 
rate power of action ; but all three together have only one 
being, one understanding, one will, one power of action. As 
it appears then, it is affirmed that there are three real beings, 
truly separate ; each, consequently, having his own individ- 
ual power of action, and yet not having it ; three separate 
persons, and three persons not separate." 

All the difficulty, which this acute writer in his usual w T ay 
has so strikingly portrayed, lies merely in the representations 
of those Trinitarians, who have expressed themselves on this 
subject so incautiously, as to be understood to affirm, that 
there are three separate beings, (persons in the common sense 
of the word), in the Godhead, with distinct powers, volitions, 
etc. If there be any now, who defend such a statement of 
this subject, I must leave them to compose the difficulty with 
Tollner, as they can. The view 7 of the doctrine of the Trinity 
given by Tollner, is not that which I have presented, or 
which I should ever undertake to defend. Of course it can- 

unius numero essentia ! . • . . Implicat divinara essentiam imam tantum 
numero esse, qod tamen unain tantum esse divinam personam, sed pln- 
cum (livina essentia numero una,et divina persona, idem onmino re- 
apse shit. 



I XI TV Of GOD. [LETT. II. 

not be fairly adduced as an objection, against the statement 
which I hai a and undertaken to defend. 

I cond objection, to which I referred i 

at firs! Bight more formidable and perplexing. It come- from 
Taylor, and was inserted in the English Theological Maga- 
zines (V<'1- J. No. 4. p. 111. 1770). I have not opportunity 
of access to the original, and take the ideas from a Latin 
translation of the piece, which was published in Germany. 

"There ean,*' says Taylor, "be no real distinction be- 
tween the Father and the Sun, unless they 50 differ from 
each other, that what is peculiar to the Father, is wanting in 
the Son; and what is peculiar to the Son, is wanting in the 
Father. Now that property which belongs exclusively to 
the Father, or the Son, musl be numbered among the per- 
fections of Godj Jbr in the divine nature no Imperfections 
can exist It follows then, that some perfection is lacking, 
both in the Father and in the Son, so that neither is endowed 
with infinite perfection, which is essential to the divine na- 
ture. It must he conceded then, that the essence of the Fa- 
ther and the Son is not one and the same." 

Ingenious and specious at first view, I would readily con- 
cede this to be ; but still I am unable to see that it settles the 
point in debate. The essence and attributes of God, so far 
as they are known to us, are numerically one, as we have 
already admitted. If Taylor means to extend the idea of 
'/// to all which belongs to the Godhead, then I would 
answer him merely by saying: ' It is essential to the perfec- 
tion of the Godhead, that the distinction of Father and Son 
should exist ; for otherwise there would be imperfection,' 
My right to make such an assertion, is ju-t the same as his 
to make the assertion, that the distinction between Father and 

Son involved an imperfection in each. Tic very fact of j)((- 
ternity and $on$hip t (not literal), make up. the perfection of 
the Father as Father* and of the Son as Son ; and did not 
thee tmething would be wanting to complete the per- 

don of the Godhead. 1 acknowledge that this is a-suinp- 

n ; } ")t bo Is Taylor's statement \ and an argument which 



IT. IT- j TWOFOLD HRIST. 47 

h built on an assumption, may rarely be opposed by another 
which has the same basis. 

My object in the present letter has been, thus far, to oom- 
e our views of the Trinity with those which you have 
nribed to os ; to show thai we are not exposed kg be justly 
charged with gross and palpable absurdity, or with "subvert- 
ing the unity of tin- Godhead :" and to prove dial the ques- 
tion, after all, whether there is in fad BODAC distinction in the 

dhead, mast he r< ferred Bolely to the decision of the Scrip- 

tun 

To them I shall appeal, as soon as I have made a few re- 
marks on the twofold nature, which we ascribe to Christ 
You say (p. 11), 

u We (Unitarians) believe in the unity of Jisus Christ. We be- 
lieve that Jesus is one mind, one BOlll, one being, as truly one as 
we are, and equally distinct from the one God. We complain of 
the doctrine of the Trinity, that not satisfied with making God 
three beings, it makes Jesus Christ two beings, and thus intro- 
duces infinite confusion into our conceptions of his character. 
This corruption of Christianity, alike repugnant to common sense 
and to the general strain of Scripture, is a remarkable proof of 
the power of a false philosophy in disfiguring the simple truth 
of Jesus." 

You will admit that this is expressed in terms of strong 
confidence, and with no small degree of severity. Whether 
you have so clear a right to the former, and whether we 
are really deserving of the latter, every lover of truth will per- 
mit to be brought to the test of fair examination. 

I am not certain that I have rightly apprehended your 
meaning, when you say that the twofold nature of Christ is 
" repugnant to common sense/' Do you mean, that com- 
mon sense may determine first, independently of revelation, 
that the doctrine cannot be true ; and then maintain the im- 
possibility that revelation should exhibit it? If SO, then we 
are able to decide a prion' and of ourselves what can be re- 
vealed, and what cannot ; consequently what we may be- 
lieve, and what we must disbelieve. It follows, then, that a 



TWOFOLD HATCH [LETT. II. 

revelation is unnecessary, or rather that it is impossibl 
least such an one as Bhall be obligatory upon our belief; for 
we have only to Bays thai our common sense decides against 
, ropriety or the possibility of the things said to be re- 
ded, and then we aw at Liberty to reject them. 
But u this the propersphere in which M common sense" should 
act ? le it not true, that common sense is limited to judging 

of the evidence- that the Bible is of divine origin and author- 
ity ; to establishing the rules of exegesis common and appli- 
cable to all languages and books ; and finally, to directing a 
fair and impartial application of those rule.-, in order to de- 
termine what the original writer of any portion of the Scrip- 
tures designed to inculcate? Having once admitted, as you 
have, the divine authority of the Scripture in deciding all 
questions ; and your obligation to submit to its decision, when 
you can understand the meaning of it by using the common 
rules of interpretation ; how is it to be determined by com- 
mon sense, whether Christ lias two natures or one ? Com- 
mon sense may investigate the language of the inspired wri- 
ters, and inquire what they have said; and if, by the sound 
rules of interpretation, it should appear that they have as- 
Cribed two natures to Christ, or have asserted that which un- 
avoidably leads to the conclusion that he lias two natures, 
then, it is either to be believed, or the authority of the writers 
i> to be Ca8l off. In rejecting any doctrine which the lan- 
guage of Scripture plainly teaches, common sense must ea-t 
off the divine authority of the Bible. To receive the Bible 
;i- a r< \ elation from God. and yet to decide a priori what the 
Scriptures can and what they cannot contain, and then to 

make their language bend until it conform with our decision, 

cannot >urely be a proper pari to be acted by any sincere 
lover of truth and sober investigation. 

When 1 lay this, I must not be understood to mean, that 
our reason cannot exercise, in some eases, what 1 would call 

:i negative power or right in regard to revelation. What oar 
reason spontaneously and with absolute certainty decides to be 

itradiction or an absurdity, (e.g. that a thing can be and 



LETT. II.] TWOFOLD I. OF ( EIRIi 40 

:inc time and j *1 in the same r . or 

that two and two mak or tli.it God i> purely spiritual 

and yet at the same time material) and the like), cannot be b 
elation from the Author of truth. I <>i within our 

will or power to command, or even fc ich propo- 

ne : and the evidence that they are not true is, by the 
very constitution of our minds, of much greater force and au- 
thority to ns, than any evidenee can possibly he. that then 

Lation from God which contains such things. Cat 

of such a natu: :eept of course from the tenor of my re- 

marks in the preceding paragraph. 

When you say, that the doctrine which teaches that Christ 
has two natui •• repugnant to common sense/' I must 

presume that you, who profess to admit the divine authority 
of the Scriptures, wish to be understood as meaning, that the 
rules of exegesis, applied by common sense, lead unavoidably 
to the conclusion that Christ has but one nature. If this be 
your meaning, what I have to say in reply, will be contained 
in my next letter. 

In regard to the impossibility that Christ should possess 
natures, and the absurdity of such a supposition, I have 
not much to say. If the Scriptures are the word of God, 
and do contain the doctrine in question, it is neither impos- 
sible nor absurd. Most certainly, if it be a fact that Christ 
possesses two natures, it is a fact with which natural religion 
has no concern ; at least, of which it has no satisfactory 
knowledge. It can therefore decide neither for nor against 
it. It is purely a doctrine of revelation ; and to Scripture 
only can we look for evidences of it. If the doctrine be 
palpably absurd and contradictory to reason, and yet is found 
in the Bible, then we must reject the claims of the Bible to 
inspiration and truth. But if the laws of interpretation do 
not permit us to avoid the conclusion that it is found there, 
we cannot, with any consistency, admit that the Scripture? 
are of divine authority, and yet reject the doctrine. 

How r shall any man decide, a prion, that the doctrine can- 
not be true ? Can we limit the omniscient and omnipotent 
5 



50 rwOTOLD v\'i DOT [LETT. II. 

laying that the Sod cannot be 90 united with hu- 
man nature, so "become flesh and dwell am " that we 
may recognize ami distinguish, in tin- complex being, bat 

one /></■<>>,/. ami therefore speak of but one ! If you a-k i 
how such a union can be effected, between natures bo infi- 
nitely diverse as the divine and human. T answer, (as in the 
case above respecting the distinction in the Godhead), that I 

do not know haw tin- i> done : I do not undertake to define 
wherein that union Consists, nor how it i< accomplished. 
God cannot divest himself of his essential perfections, i.e. lie 
i- immutably perfect; not- could the human nature of Christ 
have continued to he a real human nature, if it had ceased to 

be Bubjed to the infirmities, and Borrows, ami (in a word) all 
the affections of such a nature, while he dwelt among men. 

In whatever way. then, the union of the two nature- Wfcti ef- 
fected, it was 90 brought about that it neither destroyed, nor 
itially changed, either the divine or human nature. 
Bence, at onetime, Christ is represented as the Creator of 
the universe ; and at another, as a man of sorrows, and of 
imperfect knowledge. (John 1: 1 — IS. 1 Ieh. 1: 10—12. Luke 
22: 1 1. 2:52.) If both of these accounts are true, he must. 

Bfl it seems to me, be God omniscient and omnipotent; and 
>till a man of imperfect and gradually increasing knowledg 

If the latter were not true, then does it follow that his nature 
was not really and truly human. It is indeed impossible to 

reconcile these two apparently contradictory predicates, with- 
out the supposition of two natures. The simple question 
then is: Can they be joined or united, bo that in speaking of 
them, we may Bay of the person who possesses them, that he 
i- God or ///>///. or that we may call him by one single name, 
and by this designate that he is of either or both of these na- 
tures? <)n this subject, the religion of nature -ays nothing. 
Reason, therefore, has nothing to Bay, which is decisive ; for 

surely the reason of no finite being is competent to decide, 
that the junction of two natures in one person is either im- 

ible or absurd. 

One person^ in the sense in which each of us is one, Christ 



p. ii.] i \\ 51 

ild not lir. If w e, wit! the 

ll Bind J< ' thru Wt 1 

away bis human nature, and deny the imperfection of bia 

kn.>- But mnv not God have been, in a manner al- 

ether peculiar and mysterious, united to Jesus, without 
displ his whole power in him, or necessarily 

ng him, ;i- a man, ? In the act of 

• t put forth nil hi- power ; nor in the 
mi of created things; nor in sanctification ; nor 
9 he bring ail his knowledge into action, when he inspii 
nd apostles. Was it necessary thai lie Bhould exert 
all his attributes to the full, when he was in conjunction with 
the human nature of Christ ? h\ governing the world, from 
to day, God 'Iocs not surely exhaust his omnipotence, or 
his wisdom. He employs only so much as is necessary to ac- 
complish the design, which he has in view. In his union 
with Jesus of Nazareth, the divine Logos could not, of course, 
be necessitated at once to put forth all his energy, or exhibit 
all his knowledge and wisdom. Just so much of it, and no 
more, was manifested] as was requisite to constitute the char- 
acter of an all-sufficient and incarnate Mediator and Re- 
deemer. A\ hen necessary, power and authority infinitely 
above human were displayed; when otherwise, the human 
nature sympathized and suffered like that of other men. 

Is this impossible for God ? Is there anything in such a 
doctrine, which, if found in the Bible, would afford an ade- 
quate reason for rejecting its claims to inspiration ? For my 
own part, I cannot see either the impossibility or the absurdi- 
ty of such a thing, How shall we limit the Deity, as to the 
way- in which he is to reveal himself to his creatures ? 

Why can we not find mystery within ourselves, which is 
as inexplicable as anything in the doctrine before us? We 
do not appropriate the affections of our minds, to our bodies; 
nor those of our bodies, to our mind-. Each class of affec- 
tion- is - parate and distinct Yet we refer either to the 
whole man. Abraham was mortal; Abraham was immortal; 
these propositions are both equally true. He had a mortal 



52 TWOFOLD NATURE Of OBRI0T. [LETT. II. 

and an immortal pari ; yet both made l>ut one person. How 
is H a pn ater mystery, if I say : Christ was God* and Christ 

was Dan? II- had a nature human and divine One per- 
son indeed, in the sense in which Abraham was, he i> not. 
Nof is th« iv any created object, to which the union of God- 
head with humanity can be compared* Bui Bhall we deny 
the possibility of it, on this account ? Or shall we tax with 
absurdity, that which it is utterly beyond our reach to scan? 
I shrink from such an undertaking, and place myself in the 
attitude of listening to what the voice of revelation may dic- 
tate in regard to this. I: > us to do so, in a ease like 
the present ; it is meet to prostrate ourselves before the 
Father of lights, and say: 'Speak. Lord, tor thy servants 
up. Lord, what wilt thou have us to believe? 

Yuii may indeed find fault with us, that we speak of three 
pmtom in the Godhead, where there is but one nature; and 
yet of hut one person in Christ, where there are two natures. 
J admit that it is an apparent inconsistency in the use of 
Ian. . and cannot hut wish, on the whole, that it had not 

been adopted. Still, so great are the imperfections of lafr» 
guage in relation to such a subject, that I cannot feel dispos 
to find much fault with it. What other word in our language 
would designate an intelligent agent, who p< - powers of 

distind development? And does not the Bible, in applying 
/. tJoii, f,r, to the distinctions in the Godhead, afford some 

warrant fo* BUCh a QSfcge? But, leaving this and returning 

to the one person ct Christ, I would Bay that it designates 
Chris! a- he appears to us in the New Testament, clothed 

with a human body, and yet acting (as we suppose) not only 
as being p 1 of the attributes of a mam hut also as p< 

aing divine power. A\ the attributes of human na- 

ture in SUCh intimate conjunction with those of the divine, 
that we cannot separate the agents ; at least, we know not 
v here to draw the line of separation, heeause we do not know 

the manner in which tic.' union is effected or continued. We 
therefore of one person, i. e. one agent. And when 

that the two natures of Christ are united in one per- 



Li. TT. II.] l w OFOLD N I HRIS1 - 

that divinity and humanity ;uv brought 

Ch a COnn< Ction in tl. . that W€ cannot scpar 

them, so as to make two entirely distinct and sepan 

I ir, the wh< permitted to say that the pre* 

of Trinitarians do not feel responsible for the in- 
troduction of such technical u rms, In & e from. 
the common ideas attached to them. They merely take 
them as they find them. For my own part, I have shown 

sufficiently that I have 1 no attachment to them ; I think them, 
on the whole, not to be very happily and warily chosen, and 
could rather wish they were dropped by general consent. 
But it is perhaps too late to expect this. Still I am persuad- 
ed, that, in most cases, such language rather serves to keep 
up the form of words without definite ideas ; and I fear, that 
it has been the occasion of many useless disputes in the 
church. The things which are aimed at by using these terms, 
I would strenuously retain and defend ; because I believe in 
the divine origin and authority of the Bible, and that its lan- 
guage, when fairly interpreted, does inculcate these things. 
Candour on your part, now, will certainly admit, that tilings 
only are worth any dispute. To be anxious for, and contend 
about, a mere matter of logomachy, is too trifling for a lover 
of truth. 



5 [ PFLEMENTABT N<>n:. FT. II. 



''//•y 3/ofe fo/>. 

To do anything tike ample justice to the subject of the ,\7- 
( ...■/. would require a little volume, instead of a brief note. 
A fefi Leading hints maj serve, in some measure, to explain the 
circumstances and the object of the Council of .Nice. We can- 
not well understand the latter without some good knowledge of 
the former. The New Testament presents, according to its 
iinjly obvious import, the person of the Redeemer as both 
ilivinr and human, 4 * lie was in the beginning with God and 
was Cod ; he made all things ; he upholds all things by the word 
of his power; be is God over all and blessed forever; be 
God manifest io the flesh ; he is the true God and eternal life." 
15ut he is also man ; " there is one mediator between God and 
man, the man ( nrist Jesus ; he took part in flesh and Mood; ho 
took on him the nature of the *vr(\ of Abraham ; he was in all 
things made like to his brethren ; he was tempted in all points 
as we aic, and so can truly sympathize with us; hfl Was made 

perfect through sufferings; he learned obedience by the thin 

which he suffered; the exact day and hour of tin 4 destruction 

of Jerusalem, he could say that he knew not; he ate, drank, 
>i. laboured, journeyed, suffered from enemies and from ex- 
posure to wants and inconveniences ; he prayed, wept, and ago- 
nized in the garden of Gethsemane; be was crucified, died, and 

Avas buried; he rose from the dead with a transformed and glo- 
rious body; be was the Son of man, descended from David in 
respect to the flesh ; and in every point of view, (to sum up all 
in oil" word;, he was a complete and perfect specimen of hu- 

m>iniiij. 

One must take into view these plain things which seem to lie 
upon the very face of the New Testament, before he can gel 
;ui\ proper clue to the history of the development of ecclesias- 
tical doctrine respecting the ptrson of Christ, either in ancient 
or in Liter times. Among the ancient fathers of the church, all 

the dibits to develop the mystery before \\< y may be classified 

b\ a distribution under three different heads. First, those who 

admitted B real human nature, but explained away the divine. 
Secondly, those who admitted a divine, at least a superior, na- 
ture, but explained away the human. 'Thirdly, those w ho BOUght 

to unite both. The conceptions and explanations, however, of 



I r. II.] 9UPPL LBT (f€ 

tin' latter, are very \aii<mv: and many of them will nol abide 
the tesl of a sti id impartial scrutiny. 

In respect t<> the two iii>t classes, it is easy to sec the inllu- 
wbich the Dualistic ami Gnostic philosophy had upon 
thrm at an earl) period, which led them to regard mater and 
ly opposed to each other, and incapable of any 
real union in a being purely holy, Buch as Jesus was. of coin 
those who wric heartily convinced of this, < I < - 1 1 n - * I tin* ]><»<ii>ii- 
ity of a real union of the divine and human, in the person of 
To this class belonged, with different Bhades ofopin- 
h men as Basilides, Marcion, and Valentinian. The 
spirit of God, or tin 1 Aeon Christ, merely waved or hovered 
p the person of Jesus; or the body of Jesus was only the 
phantasm of a body. Hence Docdism. The next step was ea- 
sy. viz. that of EbumUimn ; which denied that Christ had any 
thing more than a nature merely human. This was the oppo- 
site of Decetism in some respects, and yet both sprung from 
the same source, viz., from the belief that a nature both diviue 
and human could not possibly be united in the same person. 
The one made a phantasm of the human nature, in order to 
avoid this union ; the other excluded the divine. 

Subsequently to these early heretical views, arose a scheme 
of modification, if I may so name it, by which the entire incom- 
patibility of matter and spirit, or of divinity and humanity, was 
not maintained; but still, the divine in Jesus was explained as 
being only an influence of the Holy spirit, or his energy exerted 
in a manner like that which was developed in the prophets of 
old, but more enlarged as to measure. To this rubric belong 
the views expressed in the Recognitions of Clement, by Paul of 
Samosata, (who called the influence of the Holy Spirit upon Je- 
sus, euTirtvaic, i. e. inspiration), while he looked on that influ- 
ence as differing merely in degree, not in kind, from that which 
rested on ether holy men; and finally by Sabellius, who main- 
tained that the emanation of the Godhead, which dwelt in 
Christ, was temporary. lie sometimes named this emanation an 
uru-rlucruo; lavnoaTotTog, i. e. an unsubstantial or impersonal 
new-modeling; ora7iA«rin(/uoc, i.e. extension or widening ; in- 
tending by this to designate his views of what was effected by 
the Spirit in respect to Jesus, and of the manner in which he 
supposed the Spirit to act. But the union of the divine and hu- 
man in one person, although maintained by him, was yet, in his 
opinion, only temporary. His views, therefore, could not answer 
the seeming demands of the New Testament ; and consequent- 



1 



G SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE. [LETT. 1L 



ly die} did not satisfy the churches In general Sabellius < I i t- 
fered widely firom Paul of Samosata, his contemporary, in one 
respect ; and in this he approached much nearer to what is rai- 
led the Orthodox view of the Trinity than the same Paul. The 

latter allowed of only a temporary and partial influence of the 
Spirit upon Jesus; the former maintained that the yUfnew oftbe 
Godhead dwelt in him, tor the time being; but not that this 
constituted a union which was persona] and perpetual. 

It is easy to see from the history of the past, that, in this state 
of things, the churches in general were dissatisfied with the de- 
rogatorv or degrading views that had been advanced, by various 

renowned men whom they had come to look Upon as heretical, 

respecting the person of Christ, Some remedy was needed for 
this tendency of things in the churches. The leading fathers 

even Of the third century BOUght, ami as they believed found, 

one in quite a different hypothesis, viz. that of subordination. 

As the soul is emphatically the man, and as Christ possessed 
a nature ahove the human, so in order to hold fiisr to his supe- 
rior nature, they assigned to him a soul of divine origin. One 
Christ in two persons they could not admit. The proper hu- 
man soul, therefore, must give place to the rovg or Xoyoq (the 
Word). On the other hand, the sole supremacy of the Father 

(//orK^//^)niust not be given tip, which had so long and so zeal- 
ously been contended for. The result was. to assign to the Son 
a hypostatic or personal existence, higher than that of all other 
created beings — a hypostasis different from that of the Father, 
and also subordinate to him. To make out the grand point of 
the personality of the Logos, was the principal aim at that peri- 
od, even among some of the fathers who are not regarded as he- 
retical ; because this was effectually to oppose the degrading opin- 
ion, that there rested upon Jesus merely a divine influence; an 
opinion like to that of Paul of Samosata, and of Sabellius. But 

in doing this, they were also to heware against dashinir upon 
the rocks with BUCh as denied the divine Unity, and made in ef- 
fect three Gods, To avoid these rocks, they first asserted the 
personality of the Logos, and then subordinated him to the Fa- 
ther, as being derived from him and dependent on him. 
With some Bhades of difference in minor things, and some 

diversities of representation, Teitullian, Clement of Alexandria, 
< Mgen, and DionySJUS of Alexandria, adopted and maintained 

ih views of the person of Christ It was Origen who first 
foil) and earnestly broached and taught the doctrine of eternal gi n- 

iration. With him, however, it had no very prominent meaning, 



ii.] SI PPL] HBMTJlRI \<»i i • 57 

inasmuch as he maintained the i ternal existence of the world, and 

.11 human souls. The eternal existence of the latter, <li<! not, 

iit his view, prevent their being dept n<lt ni on God, Bo the l>" 

although eternal, might be subordinate* But the churches in geu- 

I, while tin \ beld fusi to the eternal generation of the Son, 

refused to admit tin* other kindred and similar views of Origen. 

Even the eternal generation of the Son they elevated to a bigb- 

thun Origen gave to it. According to him, the 

Sim was "ni\ ouotovaioc* \. e. of the Wu nature with the Father; 

Ian the churches came gradually to the view, that the Son was 

of tin' sanu nature with the Father. This was 

plainly • d In Dionysius of Rome, in his dispute with 

Dionysius of Alexandria, who had, in order to maintain in full 

the subordination-theory, gone so tar as to call the Son a nohj^ot 

or xtIctuu, i. e. something made or created. 

In those times of siihonlinarian views came forward Arius, 
with his dogmas. lie not only went full length with the Subor- 
dinarians, as to the inferiority of the Son, but onward Tar be- 
yond most of them ; lor he maintained that the Son was a be- 
ing created in time, while they asserted that lie was begotten from 
(t'friiti/. His famous i,v noiz otb ova ?}i>, i. e. there was a time 
when the Son was not, of course was an essential denial of his 
Godhead. Names of honour he gave to the Son in great abun- 
dance ; lie even called him Oeog, God; but after all a Otbg <5fu- 
iSQog, i. e. a secondary God was meant, (which was all that he 
allowed), and this is neither more nor less than a mere creature. 

The ferment occasioned by these views of Arius, when they 
were once spread abroad, became very great. The Nicene 
Council (A. D. 325) was the consequence. Here 318 bishops 
were present ; and among these the then young and talented 
Athanasius stood highly prominent. In fact, that Council was 
swayed and guided by his eloquence and his logic. 

It is evident enough from several expressions in the Nicene 
Creed (see p. 2\) above), that the fathers of that Council meant 
to assert and maintain the true and real Godhead of Christ. 
" Begotten of the substance of the Father . . . very God of very 
God ... of the same substance (ojxoowiog) with the Father," 
designate, if any language can designate, their decided views of 
the truly divine nature of the Son. And these views, alter much 
and protracted opposition from tla.' Arian party, at last so com- 
pletely triumphed, that this party became in a maimer extinct; 
at least, after a time, only solitary individuals, or a small party, 
opposed the declarations of the Nicene creed. 



58 NTAKV NOTE. [LETT. II. 

One point seemed then to be gained in the struggle. The 
higher nalun of the Bon was. as the Nicene fathers and their 
followers believed, fully asserted How tared it, in the mean 
time, with the doctrine of his real and complete humanity .' Prom 
[renaeua downwards there had, for the most part, been more of 
lew of the daro-obscun in relation to this. The Docetae, and 
who in anj waj sympathized with them, employed expressions 

in relation to the Subject before US, ^ % 1 1 i < ■ 1 1 indicated a distrust in 

the reality of Jesus 1 physical body, or else a belief that his soul 
was only an emanation from the Logos, or only the indwelling 
of the Logos himself, or of bis Spirit. Some maintained, in- 
deed, that .'ill human souls weir merely emanations from the 
Logos; and so, that Christ was like to the rest ot" men. except 
that he possessed a higher measure of emanated influence or 
substance. The Subordinariarjs generally asserted the real fiu- 

nKiiilfi/ of Christ : hut with diversities of opinions ahout the man- 
ner in which the LogOS stood related to the souls ot' men, and 

to the soul of Jesus in particular. In different individuals, the 
expression of opinions in relation to this subject, sometimes ap- 
proached the emanation theory, sometimes the pantheistic, and 
sometimes they appear to savour even of Docetism. In gener- 
al, minute explanation relative to the 1 lii<m<m soul of JeSUB v. 
rather carefully avoided, and many writers of name contented 

thems< Ives with mere general assertions, or with rather unmean- 
ing and inappropriate comparison drawn from material objects. 
in order to put an end to this state of things, the emperor Tlieo- 
dosiUS (in A. 1). 381), a zealous advocate of the Nicene creed, 
called an ecumenical Council at Constantinople, who adopted 
again the Nicene creed, luit with a variety of explanations and 

enlargements. They say, among other things, that "Jesus he- 
came incarnate through the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary 
. . . that he was crucified for us . . . that he was cruciiied, was 
buried, and COSe from the dead . . . and is now seated at the 
righl hand of the Father/* (Svmh. NlC. Constant., in (iiest I. 
Cbh. Hist. 81, n. 2:1) 

Difficulties on the subject of Christ's humanity being still 
abroad among some of the churches, in A. I). 451 a new Coun- 
cil was summoned at Chalcedon, who seem to have gone as far 
_<■ could gp, in asserting the fulness and perfection sf 
both the divine and human natures in the person of Christ. 

" We teach," sa\ they, u and order all to confess, that there is 

oil- and the same Son, one Lord Jesus Christ : that he is per- 

■ in Godhead, and perfeel in humanity; that he ;- truly God, 



aiul trulj man with a rational soul and bodj j thai be is of the 
nee with the Father in rasped to bis Godhead, and 

of tin* same substance with lis in reaped u> bifl humanity, be- 
ing in all things like to us, although without sin." They then 
on b by the Father before the world fi 

and bis incarnation in later time; and then the}- add, that M the 
Son is Led, only begotten, of too nature* tpwretop without mix- 
ture . . . indivisible . . . bj qo I of the difference 

of In- natures bj unity, btil ratlin- preserving the peculiarity of 
ture, nnd combining them into one person and one hy- 
postasis; not divided or distinguished into two persons, but re- 
maining one ami the same only begotten <«<m1 the Logos, and 
Lord Jesus Christ" (Cited in Gieeel. Chb, Hist. I. p. -210.) 

Tlic fad of two natures, complete and real, cannot well be 
expressed in language stronger or more definite than this. But 
the fad did not satisfy all minds. Many were prone to specu- 
late. Hence the long and tedious controversies that followed, 
with the MonophysiU party, i. e. those who maintained that 
Christ had hut one nature, as well as one person. But at length 
the position of the Council ofChalcedon, as well aSofNice and 
Constantinople, obtained an almost universal predominance. 

It is no part of my design to bring down these outlines to a 
later period. It is easy to see, that the full assertions made by 
the counsel ofChalcedon, in regard to matters of fact, without 
any attempt at explanation (except what is implied in the phrase 
ration), would excite speculative and inquiring minds 
to ask: How can two natures be united in one person? Some, 
almost of course, would doubt the fact; others would insist on 
an explanation of the modus in quo ; and others would en- 
deavour, by a variety ot' definitions and argumentations, to vin- 
dicate the doctrine of the Council ofChalcedon. 

Without any special reference to this Council, the state of 
things in regard to the questions which its Confession naturally 
elicited, has been, and still is, even at the present hour, much 
like what it was in times soon following the period of the Coun- 
cil. Neither a positive definition of person, nor an explanation 
of the modus in quo of the union of two natures, has ever been 
so made as to command general assent. 

I shall pass by the efforts which mere philosophy has made 
to untie the nodus, and present the reader here with a number 
of attempts to define j wrnu diky, as applied to the divine nature, 
made, in days that are past, by leading theologians on the conti- 
nent of Europe. 



GO r NOTE. [LETT. II. 

Melnncthon : Persona est substantia individua, intelligent in- 
communicabilis, nan Bu$tenta iti alia makara, 

Buddaeus: Permma v oce suppoaitum intelligent tatur. 

Per Buppositum, autem. substantia Binguktris eotnpleta, im-oin- 
ouinicabiiis, nan aliumtk susUntata, intelligitur. . . Tree persons*) 
in essentia divina . . . tres sub>istentiae incommunicabiles, indi- 
vidual' naturae, bac ipsa manente indivisibili, indigfrantur. 

Baumgarten : Person means a 8uppo$itum which is the ground 
of certain aotioos peculiar to itself 

Morns: Persona sigotfical eos per so, (juod intelligit, at cum 
intellect!] agit 

Reinhard: Persona est individuum subsistence incompl( 
per Be Kbere agens, et divumrurn perfectaomun particeps. 

Gerhard: Persona est substantia individua, intelligent in- 
comraiinicabilis, quae nan austentatur in alio, vel ab alio. . . Non 
eel modus Bubsistendi, Bed est substantia oerto ebaracterc sive 
Bubsistendi modo insignita* 

Bobnius and Keckernaann: Hypostasis eat tqottoc vttuu&ok. 

Zanchins: IVr>ona est ij>sa essentia divina, propria subsisten- 
di modo distincta. 

Turretin. Vox pen o nm t propria concrete est non abstracta ; 
quae, praeter formaaa quae est personalitas, subjectum etiam 
notat emu forma a qua d<'iiominatur. 

Calvin: Subsietentia in essentia Dei, qua ad alios relata, pro- 
prietate incommunicahili distimruitur, [following Justin and l)a- 
mescenus of ancient times.] 

1 do not translate these definitions, k* I suppose tliose 

who will interest themselves in this inquiry, to be able to read 
the Latin, and thus to judge for themselves. 1 have a further 
reason. To translate, implies an understanding of whal one 
professes to re p t caonl in another language. I certainly cannot 
. thai I feel able clearly to comprehend most of these defini- 
tions. Some of the leading ones represent person as the mode of 
subsist/ n<< in die Godhead ; Bome join substance itself also with 

the mode. 

The majority Oif those who undertake to define personality, 

represent person as a being or subsistence who is not juaiawito 1 
by iinollitr. or das notsvJbaitl in or by another. Now it" the Father, 

H)OSl of these theologians hold, does alter all comimm'< 
personality to the Son and Spirit, how can tin 4 Son and Spirit 

be thai do not Bubaiat in or % another? If the Father 

tt the ('mis or prindpium, the JHiyn* or aiiia, of the personality i>[* 

the Son and Spirit, [afl be is ><> often called by the lathers*, then 



LETT. II.] I'PLKMEXTARY NOT!:. 61 

is it that the persona <>f tin- Son and Spirit do not subsist 
by him: And if they depend on Kuan let personality, (which ia 

virtually iiiaiiitaiin «i h\ the patristic, and expressly by the 
modern, theory of the Trinity/, then how can their personality 
be ooaeeifed of as not existing in and by him? To avoid this 
difficulty we must say, that personality heiOg once communica- 
te the Son and Spirit, it then becomes an independent at- 
tribute. Hut in this way the difficulty cannot he removed • for, 
DfBt, the SaUM Writers do most of them declare, that personality 
is incommunicable ; and secondly, it is not within the power of 
of the human mind even to conceive of a being that is indepen- 
dent as to any attribute, so long as that attribute has been be- 
stowed by another, and is not self-existent. 

Thus we see the difficulties which attend the school-logic 
era of definition and explanation, in respect to such a mat- 
ter. And as for those who undertake to make out personality 
in the common way of separate consciousness, will, affections, 
etc., i. e. in the way in which we apply the word to men, I must 
believe that their views, considered in their logical conse- 
quences, necessarily lead on to Trithcism. For what shall we 
say of the idea of three separate consciousnesses, wills, affec- 
tions, etc. ? Can a spiritual being, i. e. can the Mordg, be even 
supposed to exist without a consciousness, will, affections, etc.? 
Does not his moral character, do not his moral attributes, consist 
utially in these? And if these are not, as theologians aver, 
in reality to be distinguished from the substance or essence of the 
Godhead ; and if this substance (as all agree) is numerically one ; 
then how are we to make out three separate wills, affections, 
etc. ? Or is it that the Moras is God, without any will or affec- 
tions ? Or if they belong to him, then does the Father as one 
person have a separate will, and the Son and Spirit as second 
and third persons have each a separate will ? And are we, in 
this way of reasoning, to make out four separate consciousnesses, 
affections, etc., in the Godhead ? What is all this in reality, but 
going back to an absolute plurality in the Godhead, and main- 
taining nothing in effect but mere specific unity r 

To say that declarations like those in John and Paul, viz. that 
the Logos created all things, and that God made the world by his 
Son, must prove a distinct will of Son and Father, amounts to 
the same thing as to say, that they must prove the existence of 
distinct essential attributes. In the like way the Arians say, 
that the declaration of John, " and the Logos was with God" 
proves that he could not be the same as God, but must be a dis- 

6 



'/ 



02 SVPPLKMENTAB1 [LETT. II. 

tinrt and difTerent being; else bow could he be with bim? Hut 
Ikmv mm h tempted to exclaim: When shall we come fully t<> 
Irani, that in speaking of tin' Godhead ft! it jfl in itself, Imman 
bsnguage as bow formed, and indeed in any way in which it 
oould be formed), must be altogether inadequate to a lull and 
exact description ? When distinctions in the Godhead itself I 
oner admitted, and distinctions that pertain to an intdtigcpl ra~ 
titninl nature, in w hat other way can we speak and write re- 
specting them, than the biblical writers have done ? 1 know of 
none. The imperfection of human language forbids it. And it 

WOtlld seem to he quite as rational and scriptural to maintain 
that God is limited in his frt9i nn and is lontl, because the Scrip- 
ture represents him as Mtetmdmg and descending, as it would to 
maintain three Up & Hlk Wills, affections, etc., of the Trinity, he- 
cause God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. There is a reason 
or ground in his very being, for bis developments as Trinity ; 

else they would DO! be made. These developments necessarily 

pie-suppose some distinctions belonging to his nature; hut that 
these amount to sfptmttc consciousnesses, wills, atlections, ete., 

would be a perilous position to assume. Perilous; because 

when once assumed, theoretical tritheism at least hecomes logi- 
cally inevitable. A man may contradict and disclaim this, J well 
know, in words: and he may sincerely and truly reject it in in- 
tuition ; hut the inevitable lo'sicdl result of his position must he 
theoretical Tritheism. What more distinctive mark is there of 
three different persons among men, and in a human sense, than 
that they have separate consciousnesses, wills, and nfleclions ? 
Perilous, I say again, because it assumes the position, that we 
know enough Concerning the nature of the distinctions in the 
Godhead, thus to predict of it what amounts to an essential part 
of distinctive individuality among menu Can we deliberately 

Bike, and endeavour to maintain, >\\v\i a position as this : 

What God has done in developing himself we know from 

Scripture. That a distinction is necessarily implied by these 
developments, from the verj structure of our minds we cannot 

avoid admitting. But to extend this in such a way as to snake 
out a metaphysical definition of' persona in the Godhead, (which 
of course must implj a definite knowledge of' the particular and 
distinctive nature of person in it), seems to me to he treading on 
forbidden ground Is it not advancing beyond the boundaries 

of human know ledgi 

I can see no contradiction, no absurdity, nothing even incon- 
gruous, in the supposition, that the divine nature has manifested 



LETT. II.] LB1 ITO 

Father, Son, nnd Holy Ghost, while ii and es- 

snnial attributes are and nave al way* been numerically one aod 

same; for that the) are end have been so, nil the len d in g 

Trinitarians N n i> it within the con any efied 

that my mind ran make, to conceive how namerical mxmtnem <>f 

m\ attribute, is compatible with distinct eo n a c i o na- 

wills, and affections? What are tbene la>t but eesnsMal 

attributes of the Mora* himself? And If no, bon can 1 1 1* *^« * very 

. attributes be numerically three? If the Bible asserta this, 

then 1 will yield ai one* ; i»- eause I -hall then take it for graaft- 

tbat my darkened and feeble understanding i< the source af 

my difficulty. Hut if the Bible (as 1 verily believe does neither 

it nor imply it ; then it mU8t be shown to be possible and 
consistent, before it can he entitled to our faith. 

It would seem, that after all wliich has been done to show 
the high and spiritual and incomprehensible nature of the divine 
Being, and the inadequacy of human language fully to describe 
him as he i>. \\<- are \et called to argue, in order to satisfy the 
minds of some, that such expressions as the Logos being with 

, and GotTs creating ike worlds bij his Son, are not to he taken 
and reasoned from, just as if they had been employed in respect 
to known individual and entirely separate beings. If God com- 
municates his whole substarwe to the Son, as the Xicenians, and 
most of the Trinitarians in modern times (who treat of and be- 
lieve in eternal generation) actually maintain, bow then can 
there he stpamtt consciousnesses, wills, and affections r Or are 
we to suppose these to exist independently of the substance or 

nee of the Godhead ? 
In a word, it is only when we come adequately to learn the 
imperfection of human language, and the difficulties which at- 
tend communications by it respecting distinctions in the God- 
head, that we shall be satisfied how inconclusive all reasoning 
must he, which is founded on deductions drawn from the lan- 
guage of Scripture, when we interpret that laiiL f uaL r e just as if 
it had relation to finite intelligences who are altogether distinct 
and separate beings. What cannot be proved, if we are to take 
such liberties as these ? Surely the Anthropomorphites are not 
to he confuted, when such a position is taken. Jt seems to be 
quite as cogent an argument to say, that when hands, eyes, feet, 
heart, etc., are ascribed to the Godhead by the sacred writers, 
they can mean nothing, unless \\<* 'jive to their language a liter- 
al, or at least a 91ms*'- literal, meaning, as it is to say that the 
being with God, and GoiTs creating the worlds by his Son can 



64 M rri.I.MI.NTAKY NOTK. [LETT. II. 

mean nothing unless it ha\ <' 8 literal, or 7 *///.<> /-literal, meaning. 

In the first case, we reject the exegessi of the Anihropomor- 

phites, because WC Consider it absolutely certain that God i> a 

simple spiritual being. In the second, then, the admitted ?m- 

vuriral unit*/ and Sdmoass of substance and essential attributes in 
the Godhead, would seem to stand arrayed, with e<jual Strength, 

■,iu>t a supposition which would make three numerically dis- 
tinct essential attributes ; for such must be three distinct and 
Separate consciousnesses, wills, and aifections. At least, it is 
not in the power of my mind to conceive that these two thin 
when put together, do not prove an absolute contradiction. 

Some of my readers may perhaps he now inclined to ur<reme 
to L r ive my OWTJ views of personality. I have already declined 
an attempt at formal definitions, averring my belief to be, that 
ptrson indicates some distinction in the Godhead, the positive 
nature of which we do not understand, and therefore cannot 
define. I have no objection, however, to saying what I think 
it if not, i. e. to giving in some respects a negative definition. 
If It be asked, then: Is personality essence or attribute? Not the 
first, oik 4 Blight answer; lor essence in the Godhead is numer- 
ically one and the same. Not the second in an essential and 
fnndunu ntnl sense; because, as we have seen, all the? attributes 
that are of this description, belong to the one substance or es- 
sence of the Godhead, 'But if personality be neither substance 
nor attribute,' some one may exclaim, 'then can it be anything, 
or have any existence at all ?' 

M\ answer is, that this last question is founded on some mis- 
conception, or at least imperfect conception, of the positions 
just laid down. God may have properties or attributes, which 
we do not consider as exclusively peculiar to Deity, and which 
do not of themselves distinguish him from created beings. Thus 
We iii;i\ say, his nature is spiritual ; and so is that of angels, 
and of that part of man which is made in his image. Such at- 
tributes, from their very nature, do hardly admit of gradation in 
the common sense. Other attributes he has, some of which are 
distinctive or peeuliar to him principally in respect to degree ; 
such SJ Wisdom, justice, goodness, «tC. Others he has, which 
are entirely and altogether peculiar and appropriate ; such as 

■elf-existenee, eternity absolute, immutability, etc Now per- 
sonality cannot be put among these two latter clashes of attri- 
butes ; because they betSQg, as nearly all airree, to the Movnq 
or essential substance of the Godhead. If then personality be- 

IftSig to the Godhead, it must belong to it, as it would seem, not 



. i. ii.] PPLBK1 \ i ai:v HO I 

as essential to di\ imtv, hut as in POOM reaped Of Other modal, 

is an attribute which be4de (in a logical arrangement 

dar) and not a primars pi., 

rurretin himself concedes: PeiBona differre dicetur ah 

iitia, non rt(ditti\ id esl esstntialiter, ut res el n -. §ed mods> 
liin\ at modus a n ; Quaeet 27, & That is, stu afr i maj be 
i to differ from , nol really, i. e, essentially, as thing 

and thing, bul madally, as mode from thing. 

It is possible then, that there may be in the Godhead some 
distinctions which do not consist in a difference of substani 

and which moreover do not consist in the high and peculiar and 

iiiM\e attributes of that substance which constitute Godhead, 

hut which are, as Turretin avers, modal; or they may he of 
such a nature that we have no language to describe them, and 
no present ability even to comprehend them it* they could be 
described. Can it he strange that the uncreated and sell-exis- 
tent Godhead should have some such properties as these? The 
impossibility or even the improbability of this, no man is able to 
prove. 

There may then he distinctions in the Godhead, that lie be- 
yond all our present logical and metaphysical conception or 
power of definition ; distinctions which are co-eternal with the 
Godhead itself; and which, though neither essence or essential 
attribute in the highest sense, may still have an existence that 
is real and true. 

\uy theory which derives the essence of Godhead in the Son 
and Spirit from the fust person, seems to strike at the root of 
equal power and glory among the three persons of the Godhead, 
and moreover virtually to deny the self-existence and independence 
of the second and third persons. Any theory which makes the 
modus eristendi, i. e. the subsistence or personality, of the Son 
and Spirit to depend on the first person and to be bestowed by 
him, in like manner virtually denies the self-existence and inde- 
pendence of the second and third persons ; for how can they 
be of that self-existent substance which is numerically one and 
the same with that of the Father, and yet this substance have 
no modus subsistendi of its own ? How can substance exist 
without a mode of existing ? Or if you say, that 'there are dif- 
ferent and many modes of subsisting belonging to the same 
essence, and that personality is only one of them; or that other 
modes of existence May be necessarily attached to the divine 
substance which is one, but that this may be something which 
is bestowed on the second and third persons, or imparted to them ;' 



66 -I PPLEMENTARY NOTE. [LETT. II. 

then I have several difficulties to suggest which seem to lie in 

the \\;t\ of Mich B supposition. (I) It* tin* Father, Son, and 
Spirit, arc in all respects cipial in power and glory, how can the 

Father have ■ p o wer to hestow personality on the Son and 

Spirit, when they have no such power in reference to him ': 

i It* the Father has a personality bes towe d by none, this must 

he the roult of the suhstalice which he 008088888, and a modi- 

ficatioo of it which is inseparably connected with its very na- 
ture ; hut inasmuch as the Son and Spirit possess numerically 
the POM BUbstaoes, how is it that this same modification of per- 
sonality, does not attach also to the divine substance which is 
in them ? 

Person, moreover, cannot he such a division in the Godhead, 
a- makes separate and merely CO-ordinate consciousnesses, wills, 
affections, etc ; for this brings US to admit a principle that 
would consist with all the polytheism which we can imagine to 
exist, or to he possible, among divine natures; or else it reduces 
us to make the impossible supposition, that one and the same 
identical spiritual substance has three distinct sets of attributes, 
which in all respects are again one and the same with each 
other, or at least exactly alike. 

Jn fact, any definition of personality in the Godhead which 
re pr es en ts person to he ens per se or substantia indwidua non 
sustentata in alia natura, as most of the definitions ahove gVPBfl 
do either assert or imply, seems plainly and substantially to in- 
fringe <>n the idea that there is hut one and numerically the 
same snaetance in the Godhead. I am not ahle to see why it 
does not clearly involve a logical contradiction. 

One and all of these modes of Trinitarianism then, it would 

in, must be abandoned by the considerate believer of the 

present day. Protestants have always professed themselves at 

liberty to pass in review Creeds and Confessions and Byeostna, 

venerable lor antiquity, and long defended by eloquence and 

learning and even force. Hut let them not ahuse this sacred 
privilege. I.rt them not reject anything merely hec.-.use it is 

old, or because it has been defended \)\ arguments that will not 

ahide the day of scrutiny : nor receive anything merely hecaiise 

it is new and striking, and looks fair, and promises to relieve 
some of the difficulties t hat accompanied the older doctrine. 

Will it be said now by those who are opposed to the doctrine 
of the Trinity, that nothing certain can he made out in respect 
to it. either from the ancient ( nristian lathers, or the modern 
oolfi of theology; and that, from my own showing, it apr> 



LETT. II.] srrri \ i;v N( i n . G7 

to tare been an ever varying and obscure and indefinable doc- 
trine, and therefore cannot be important to the Christian, mnefa 

•ntial to his salvation ? The answer to this SU ggOBt lO tl 

is n«»t difficult. 1 ask. first, mi it not true, that the great body 
of the Christian churches, in every aire, have regarded Christ as 
/n</y divitit. and considered 1 1 i 1 1 1 as the proper object of worship, 
and the Being to whom their prayers might be properly direct- 
ed t I admit, for I have already shown, that the metaphysical 
illations of every age have been more or less varying, and 
sometimes in certain reports even opposite — speculations re- 
specting the modus of the connection between Father, Son, and 
Spirit, the personality of each, the relation of the higher and 
lower natures in the person of Christ, and in regard to some 
other thipgs of the like kind. Bui may not men make endless 
mistakes, and exhibit a countless variety of opinions, when they 
undertake to specificate and define that which in its very nature 
is beyond the reach of definition? And may not the mistakes 
or errors which they commit, pertain altogether more to philo- 
sophical views about the modus of things, than to their essence or 
reality? How easy it would he to show the like state of things 
in regard to most of the objects of intellectual or natural philos- 
ophy ! It is sufficient to mention two simple tilings, in the ex- 
istence and leading properties of which every rational being 
now alive on earth believes, who is in possession of common 
sense and has the use of his faculties — I mean light and heat. 
But is there any end of the disputes about these? Or is there 
like to be an end ? It is not even yet decided, whether these 
are material substances or not, nor in what way the sensation of 
light in us is produced. It is not decided whether the sun ra- 
diates both, in such a manner as must attach itself to subtile 
and attenuated fluid substances, or whether his presence in the 
sky only occasions an action in the atmosphere, or in the empy- 
real fluid, which terminates in affecting our senses with the 
perception of light and heat. But is any man deterred by the 
endless disputes in relation to these subjects, from believing in 
the reality of light and heat? So far as I know, there is not, 
and never has been, even one. 

Why now should the ever varying efforts of men to define 
the personality of the Godhead, and to define the manner in 
which the person of Christ is constituted, prevent our believing 
in what the 4 Scriptures have asserted to be a matter of fact, viz., 
that Christ is both God and man ? To show a priori that such 
a fact involves an impossibility or an absurdity, is out of question. 



G8 PPLEMENTABT N0T1.. [LETT. II. 

If we adhere to the authority of revelation, then we must simply 
inquire: What does revelation say? We need not — should not 
— go to the ever varying phases of the doctrine of the Trinity, 
m taught hy the Fathers and by the Schools, in hope of team- 
ing what cannot be taught by men, because it is beyond their 
reach* And it' nearly, or (to a certain extent) quite, all the di- 
versities of opinion that exist, have respect to things which i 
beyond the boundaries of human knowledge, why should this 
be made a ground Tor rejecting the substan<e of that in which 
the churches have been and are agreed ? That substance, as it 
appears to me alter not a little investigation of the history of the 
doctrine in question, seems to be, that Christ possesses a truly 

divine nature, which makes him a proper object of worship, of 

homage, and of prayer. Jt lies on the face of past history, that 
the Christian church was never, for any considerable length of 
lime, satisfied with anything which they regarded as amounting 
to less than this. The New Testament always stood in the 
way of theories below this, and brought the church out, sooner 
or later, against them. 

There cannot he any reasonahle doubt, in respect to the Unaf- 
fected reverence and homage paid to Christ by such men as 

Origen and Busebius ofCesarea. Yet they held the doctrine of 

eternal generation in the Jionwiousian form, i. e. they held only 
that the Son was likt to the Father. For us, this sentiment 
would throw an insuperable obstacle in the way of homage and 
WOfBbip to him, as a Being who is truly divine. But not so to 
them. Their philosophy forbade not the idea of emanation from 
God, and the emanation of a being like to him, hut of course de- 
pendent on him. Vet here an escape from maintaining the de- 
cided inferiority of the Hon, was designedly provided for, by 
holding that the generation or emanation of the Son was (tfrnat, 
and therefore \\v must he divine. With their philosophy we can- 
not possiblj agree: hut their realiheology is less discrepant from 
ours, than we may he inclined to imagine. 

It is plain enough, that. When the chinches had hecome 
alarmed with tin,' tendency of Origeifs .-peculations, and espe- 
cially when this alarm had become almost a consternation, at the 
period in which A.rius broached his famous problem: Then too* 

a tinu uhinttu Son Was not ; and also asserted that /a was nnn/i/ 

created befort the world began) (a view much below that of Ori- 
gen); it is plain, I say, that the church BpokeOUt its conviction- 

at Nice, hi a> to contradict both Origen and Alius, although 

Afi 'iic person mainly and immediate!) aimed at in their 



IT. II.] Sl'ITLl Ml N 1 \K\ NO I I .. 

(J. The Homoiousy of Origen and Ariua in exchanged for 

HtmMUfpi i. e, tih si<i>.<hiii>; with the father jb — changed for 

thslmm : the created or neaV of Ariua ifl exchanged for 

n illy begotten. This puts aside al once * »< >t 1 1 Origanum and 

Aiiani-ni, .-iiid makes in facl a \»-r\ importanl advance toward- 
the aoripture doctrine of the Trinity — as greal an one aa could 
with an\ good reason be expected, at the commencement of the 
fourth century. 

But Blil I, with all the veneration which I feel for the Christian 
fathers, and all which in addition to this is naturally attached 

to a Treed >o long and so widely diffused and honoured, I must 

confess myself to he entirely at a loss, how an intelligent Trinita- 
rian, of the present time, can consent to admit this Creed as the 

handing 83 mbol of a Christian confession of faith. First, as a sum- 
mary of Christian doctrine it is essentially defective: for it con- 
tains little else hut a contradiction of the peculiarities of Arius. 
All the leading and fundamental doctrines of grace are omitted, 
ondly, it ass. rts a doctrine, viz, that of eternal generation, 
which we of the present day, taught as we have been in respect 
to the eascnftal attributes of Godhead, cannot possibly admit, 
without at the same time admitting, that the Son is neither self- 
existent nor independent. But a being destitute of these two at- 
tributes we cannot regard as " God over all and blessed forever." 
I have no apprehension that the Xicene fathers meant to assert 
or concede the inferiority of the Son, or to imply a doubt of his 
true divinity. But, as I have already said, their metaphysics 
(such as they were) permitted them to believe in derived Godhead, 
and yet to make it homoousian with its source! But in this cal- 
culation the attributes of self-existence and independence were 
overlooked. A being derived, begotten, emanated, or created, 
cannot, even in imagination, be supposed to be self-existent or 
independent All that is said of mysteriousness, and of the in- 
conceivably super-natural, in respect to the mode of generation, 
does not touch the point in question. The favourite simile of 
Tertullian, and after him of all the orthodox fathers and even of 
the writers ef modern times, is that of radiance proceeding from 
the sun. 'It is,' say they, 'coeval with the sun, and existed the 
first moment that the sun had an existence : and moreover, it is 
part of the sun, or of the same nature with him, and yet the 
emission of it does not diminish or alter the sun.' But on closer 
examination, we find that this comparison will not abide the test; 
not even as to time. It comes near to illustrating the eternity 
of the Son's generation, but does not reach the mark. If the 



70 srPPLKMEXTARY Noll. [LETT. II. 

sun i< the cause of radiance, then did the cause prtctd* the u fleet 
Am t<> the reel ; does not radiance depend upon the sun, which m 
its proper cause? And m the Logos asNsed and dependent, and 

\fl (iod supreme? And when it is said that radiance is homo- 
onsiiiii with the miii itself; how can it he true, that the cause of 

radiance and radiance itself are the tomi .' Moreover, if radial 
ii material, then does the sun sutler a change by emitting it 

If it is not material, then it depends on sitcassive influence- <»f 

the sun. Of course, there is no one point of the comparison 
which will abide the test. It must be true, that the necessary 
concomitant of generation, emanation, or creation, is (!</)( nrfence 
on the being which begets, or emanates, or creates. Dependence, 
however, and self-existence are direct oppoekes. 

These considerations seem so plain and obvious, that I must 
confess it to be a matter of surprise to me, that any Trinitarians 

af the present day should adopt and defend the NiceM Creed, 

a< part of their profession of faith. 

I say nothing here of the SO Called .tihftnus'wn Greed ; because 
it is generally admitted, as I suppose, that there is no satisfac- 
tory proof that AthanasiUS was the author of it Dr. Waterland 
ascribes it to Hilary, bishop of Aries. Jt was first received in 
France, about A. I). 650; in Spain and Germany, about 1030. 
hi some parts of Italy it was current about !H>0; at Rome, it 
was admitted in 1014. Many churches, viz. the Lutheran, the 
Episcopal (of Europe), and others, receive and retain it. It is 
more minute and circumstantial than the Nicene ; but it leaves 
the main difficulty, viz. iknvation and dependence, unremoved. 
Any ('reed, which predicates these of the Logos or divine na- 
ture of Christ, cannot be mine. It is far below what I rail 

orthodoxy, at the present time. We cannot take such a position, 
while enlightened views of the true nature of Godhead are 

widely diffused, without incurring the certain risk of teaching 

what is indeed somewhat in ad\ ance of Arianism, but still, as to 
the two most distinctive attributes of the Godhead, viz. .stlf-trish 

and independence, it occupies common ground with the same 
heresy, \ y "v surely it differs from it, in respect to the matter 
now before u>, only in the terminology which it employs. 

1 must now beg leave farther to remark, that I know of no one 
topic in theology, which has been more abused, whether in the 

way of reasoning, or of appealing to the ancient fathers, than 

that of the Trinity. Some reason from all declarations respect- 

ing this doctrine, jusi as if language concerning it were eta- 
ployed in its ordinary sense as applied to finite and created be- 



LETT. II.] M I'Ml \ I LB1 Noll i 71 

inirs. This baa been usual among Antitr'mitarians, in nil ages. 
The appeals to the ancient Christian lathers bare heap endfc 
and unfortunately, all pan find something in them, which 

the) ma\ manage to con vert to their* own use. Strictness of de- 
finition in rejranl to such a Bubject, among writen so little 
guided by the logic of Aristotle, or any other logic, as th«- fat! 
wove, ia <>ut of all reasonable question* Then ■ not one oftbem, 
in which wecannot find al leasl seeming discrepancies and con- 
tradictions. This lays them open to abuse and perversion. Thru 
oftentimes their notions of the Godhead seem to !><• so discrepant 
from OUTS, particularly in regard to the pure spirituality/ of his 

nature, that what they sometimes say Is capable of a meaning 

apparently very Strange, and at variance with the general tenor 
of their langua. 

These are sources enough for originating mistakes, and to 
render the ground of the lathers rather a hazardous one to he 
trodden by a partisan Of sectarian. Dr. Priestley has shown, on 
one side, and Waterland, as I think, on the other, not only what 
Opposite conclusions may be drawn from the same general 
I, but how almost anything and everything can he made 
out of hasty or not well digested expressions, when one sets out 
to carry a point at all adventures, and moreover does not enter, 
with any good degree of success, into the spirit of the age when 
the works of the fathers were written. A more incondite and 
unfair hook than Priestley's History of Early Opinions, is rarely 
to he met with. Dr. Priestley was much more appropriately 
employed in the chemical than in the putristical laboratory. 

Among the many hundreds of hooks, which have professed to 
give the views of the Christian fathers respecting the doctrine 
of the Trinity and the dignity and person of the Son of God, I 
know of hut one, which is not a mere compilation of fragments 
and insulated and scattered parts. The idea of a regular order 
in the topics, and the unfolding of a principle, which may he 
called the trunk from which limbs have been continually shoot- 
ing otf: the conception of a general unity, with demarcations of 
specific variety ; seem to have entered thoroughly into the 
mind of no writer, previous to the recent admirable Essay of 
Prof. J. A. Dorner, of the university of Tubingen, in his History 
of the Unfolding of the Doctrine respe r tims the Person of Christ, 
To him 1 am much indebted for some of the views corresppnr 
dent with such a plan, in the present Note.* 

* I take great pleasure in adding, that it appears by the catalogue of 

books in Germany, that he is enlarging, filling out, and completing the 



72 Bl •rri.l.Ml.NTAKV Noil.. [lett. II. 

One thing I cannot forbear noting in respect to the work of 
Doraer. This is. thai a harge portion of his book is occupied 

with a Crit'ujUt on all the various schemes of philosophy in Gem> 

mans, w liirli lia\ e attracted any special notice, BO tin as the) are 
concerned with the subject of Christology. Being an adopt in 
tins branch of science, and ane-oftne verj highest order, it ia no 
wonder thai bis book, containing such a masterly CrUiqm as it 

dors, lias attracted the notice and commanded the applause of 

all. The justice oi his criticisms is tilt ; lor otherwise they could 
i M »t command such general homage. 1 le who wishes to learn bow 
philosophy, for the last half century, has modified Christolo^y, 
may gratify hi> curiosity by reading his hook. The various syay 
terns of \\ ohms, Kant, Jacobi, Fichte, Scbelliug, Scbleiermaeber, 

Alarheineke, Kosenkrantz, (iiischel, (.'cumuli, and Hegel, specially 
ot* the latter, }>ass in review, and the ruling principles of each 
an* exhibited and criticised. Will not the reader, who is unac- 
quainted with these, he somewhat surprised to learn, that, fiom 
Schelling downward, all assume the doctrine ot" a Trinity as tine, 
and as the hasis of their system ? Specially does the union of the 
nivi.NK (iml iiiMAN constitute a leading element in the Hegelian 

philosophy. Indeed its advocates, such as are religiously inclined, 
beaut of Us having brought about a complete union between the 
Scriptures and reason, in respect to this leading point of Cbriat- 

stogy. Accordingly we thai J)r. Nitzach of Bonn and Wcisse ot* 

Leipsic (a leading Hegelian there), in the same No. of the Quar- 
terly Studiin und kritikm, both defending the doctrine of the 
Trinity, against the semi-Arian views ot* T. Liicke ; the first, in 
the Old School and even Thomas Aijninas style ; the second, 
after the manner of the new philosophy. What a chanm ! 
How does time trample upon violent party etlusions, and refi 
to listen to the \oice ot' ridicule and contempt! The Jltttionnl- 

i.sis routed and dispersed by the Htgttfani! 

It would he aside from my present purpose, to aim at making 
an e///ov of tin- Hegelian Chrislology* Doraer is the onl\ Get- 
man whom J ha\e heen ahle to fellow and understand, in his 
view of this matter. His thoughts. are so straightforward and 
logical and discrimtnatmg, without being overloaded with tech- 
nical phraseology, that a patient reader, somewhat versed in 
such matters, may comprehend and fellow him. 

ftdfnhable plan Which he sketehnl in the filSl edition of his work h 

-in;i!l s\<». roLj : inasmuch w a//Vs' volnme ha- already been published, 
wlriab, as it indicate! a second, promises of course a great enlargement 
of the original work. 



i itt. ii.] sum im! n i iRi no 73 

But after all, what a Trinity does Hegelism make! It funis 
no difficulty indeed, in bringing together Ood and mora, the di- 
vine nature and tin 1 human, because, aa it assume*, God is de- 
veloped - being, i. e. as having personality, only in 
a human nature. He could nol be Qod In full without ns, any 
more than we can be perfect men without him. It would seem 

sording to this philosophy, therefore, to be proper to say, that 
the divine nature is human, and the human nature i- drthtf; 
we air God, ami God i- we. Indeed tin* Hegelians make ibis 
fundamental in their system. Hut why the only perfect man was 
nd why other men are n<>t perfect Brace God de- 
vejopes himself in them, is what the philosophy in question (1 
not satisfactorily solve. Other great delimits in the Hegelian doc- 
trines are pointed out by Dorner; and in BUCfa a way as to show, 

that these doctrines fell immeasurably below the standard of the 

iptures, in respect to the Gwl-Man who is the Redeemer of 
our fallen race. In effect the sinner is taught, (if indeed as a 
sinner he is taught at all), that God has as much need of him as 
he of God. lit what way a broken and rontrite spirit is to be pro- 
duced, by means such as these, remains practically and theo- 
retically a problem, which it would be difficult to solve. 

I am not among the number of those who suppose that He- 
gtePs direct design was to overthrow Revelation and Christianity. 
But I am, at the same time, most fully satisfied, that he regarded 
Revelation with so little respect, With reference to any principles 
of philosophy, that he would never have modified a single thought 
or expression out of deference to it. His Pantheism makes it 
easy to believe in a sort of incarnation. His God, so far as he 
concedes that there is any, is an impersonal being, except as he 
is dependent on us for temporary personal development. And 
again, when he has fully united with us, we lose our personality 
as human beings, as a matter of course. There is no doubt of 
the great talent — of the highly discriminating powers of Hegel, 
or of his extensive learning in the department of philosophy. 
But to make such abstractions a part of the religion of the great 
mass of men — it would be more difficult than it would to con- 
vert them into Xewtons and Laplaces. 

Dorner himself, who cherishes the highest admiration for the 
talents of Hegel, confesses, or rather shows, that 'the God-Man 
of his system is essential!}/ different from that of the Gospel ; 
that the reconciliation (or atonement) is a bare mediation of God 
with himself, in order that he may become conscious of himself 
in another mode of existence, i. e. in the world, (so that in effect 

7 



74 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE. [LETT. II. 

a duality is virtually assumed in God); that the forgiveness of sin 
• iily a religious mode of expression intended to designate the 
moral freedom of man j that men have a continued power of 
redeeming themselves without the mediation of Christ ; that all 
men arc essentially of the same nature and rank as Christ; that 
men are only temporary phenomena, into which the divine en- 

v enters, and through which it penetrates, in order that it 
may attain to a consciousness of itself ; and finally, that the per- 
fect unity of the divine and human, in Christ, in a peculiar man- 
ner, is neither supposed nor supposahle, nor can his develop- 
ment he regarded as sinless.' In a word, the incarnation 
amounts only to a satisfactory proof, that the union of God and 
man is possible, which man in his natural state is inclined to 
disbelieve. 

Such are some of the results of Hegelian Christology. Truly 
"the world hy Wisdom know not God." And I may add, from 
the deepest convictions of my soul, that "the foolishness of God 
ifl W186T than men." In the spirit and with the language of a 
penitent of ancient days, who hastened to the sepulchre of Je- 
3US, where she feared that all her hopes had heen buried, I 
would approach this charnel-house of vital Christianity and ex- 
claim : M They have taken away my Lord, . . . and I know not 
where they have laid him !" So far as this philosophy is con- 
cerned, that is all I could have to say. Hut no grave can hold 
the mighty Conqueror of death. lie is not there, he has risen ; 
lie has ascended on high, led captivity captive, is distributing 
gifts to men, and is and will he crowned and adored as Lord 
of all, by those " who have been redeemed to God by his blood, 
out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." 

It i< time to close this protracted Note, I cannot do this, bow- 
ever, without adding a word on the position which, as it seems 
to me, all evangelical churches ought to take, in reference to 
tin.' doctrine of the Trinity. (1) They should insist on it, that, 
according to the Scriptures, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are one 
God, and hut one, the same in suhstanee, equal in power and 
glory. (2) They should maintain, that in the Lord Jesus Christ, 
the diviiK and human, in the peifection and fulness of both, are 
united. (3) They ought not to exact from any one, professing the 
Christian faith, that he should adopt any definition or description 
of the word person, as applied to the Godhead or to the Lord JeSUi 
Christ, Which mere philosophy or theology has made out, hut 
which is not taught in the Scriptures. (4) Ifl might he permit- 
ted freely to speak my own opinion, I would further say, that I 



LETT. IT.; BUPPLEMT \ 1 'ART NOTE. 






Bbould regard the omission of the word peraon in all churrh-mrds 

as quite desirable, in order to avoid fruitless and endless eontro- 

-\ and misunderstanding. If any one is startled at this. I 
take shelter under a name, which, although once cast out, and 
abhorred by many, and often co?ered with reproach, now com- 
mands, among nearly all parties of the intelligent, unaffected reve- 
rence and admiration ; I mean the name of < A 1 A IV In his In- 
stitutes, I. 13. 5, he say 8: M Utinara Bepulta essent Ao/iuWf, con- 
i haec inter omnes fides: Patrtm el FUium <t Spiritism 

dum east unum Dtum; i.e. My wish is, that all names might 
be buried, provided this article of faith might be agreed upon by 
all: The Father and Son a.m> Holy Spirit aki: one God." 

I need not say how many anxious minds would be calmed by 
the adoption of such a noble and scriptural sentiment, and by 
agreeing upon it as one of the conditions of Christian confidence 
and communion. Nor need I say, how much unskilful handling 
of this great and difficult topic would he prevented, nor how 
targe a proportion of objections against Trinitarianism would be 
removed. All this lies upon the face of the matter. How was 
it with the churches, before the Council of Nice? They had no 
Creed drawn up in any formal manner. And nearly all of the 
martyr-spirit, most of the enlarged success in converting heathen, 
and high attainments in the spirit of brotherly concord, as well 
as all the conspicuous Christian graces, belong to the earliest 
period of the church. Have we nothing to learn from facts like 
these') My belief is, that the churches must go back, and make 
more of the Bible, and less of Creeds, in order to revive the 
spirit of the primitive ages of Christianity. When they shall be 
as anxious to promote brotherly harmony, and kindness, and true 
liberality, as they have for a long time been to inflame secta- 
rian zeal, and increase the causes of dissension by sectarian 
creeds, and to treat with severity and contempt or reproach those 
who differ from them in matters unessential, then will the world 
once more be constrained to say : See how these Christians love 
one another ! Then, to use the last words of the adorable Saviour, 
" will they all be one;" and then, (lint not till then), " will the 
world believe that Christ is sent by the Father." 



7G MODE OF INTERPRETATION. [LETT. III. 



LETTER III. 

Reyerend am> Pear Sir, 

My great object, hitherto, has been to show, that the real 
question at issue between us, in regard to a distinction in the 
Godhead and the divinity of the Saviour, cannot be decided 

independently of the Scriptures. There is no such absurdity 
or inconsistency in either of these doctrines, as will justify us 
in rejecting them without investigation. The question 
whether they are true or not, belongs entirely and purely to 
Revelation. If you admit this, then the simple question be- 
D us is : What does Revelation teach? We are agreed 
that the Bible is the word of God ; that whatever " Christ 
taught, either during his personal ministry, or by his inspired 
apostles, is of divine authority." We are agreed as to prin- 
ciples of interpretation! in most things that are of any impor- 
tance. We both concede, that the principles by which all 
books are to be interpreted, are those which apply to the in- 
terpretation of the Bible ; for the very plain reason which 
you have given, that when God condescends to speak and 
write for men, it is according to the established rules of hu- 
man language. What better than an enigma would the 
Scriptures be, if such were not the fact? An inspired in- 
ttrpreter would be as necessary to explain, as an inspired 
prophet or apostle was to compose, the books of Scripture. 

From this great and fundamental principle of all interpre- 
tation, it results that the grammatical analysis of the words 
of any passage, i. e. an investigation of their meaning in gen- 
eral, of their syntactical connection, of their idiom, of their 
relation to the context, and of course of their local meaning; 
must be (be essential process, in determining the sense of any 
text or part of Scripture. On this fundamental process de- 
pends the interpretation of all the classics, and of all other 
books; from this result laws which are uniform, and which 
cannot be violated, without at once plunging into the dark 



it. in.] mom mi in 11 nvuvv] \ hon. 77 

and boundless Held of conjectural rxr^'-is. Whatever aid I 

mav L r < t from other Bourcet t<> throw light upon my text, I 
cannot dispense with the aid which these rules will afford. 
These roles are founded in the simple fact, that every writer 
wishes and expects to be understood by his contemporaries; 
and therefore nses language a< they da We presume this 

of th«' -acred writers; and apply to them, as to the ela— 

ccepting that we allow for the Hebrew-Greek idioms in 

the New Testament), the common and universal rules of 
grammatical interpretation. 

Admitting then the fundamental principles of grammatical 
interpretation to be the best and surest guide to the sense of 
any writer, I must never supersede these, by supposing or 
conjecturing that some peculiar principles or motives influ- 
enced that writer. If it can be proved that he was under the 
influence of these ; or if this can be even rendered probable ; 
of course such a fact must have its proper influence upon 
the interpretation of him. But until this can be shown, the 
general laws of grammatical interpretation are our only guide. 
Nor can we violate the obvious principles of grammatical in- 
terpretation, for the sake of vindicating from inconsistency, 
absurdity, or contradiction, any author, even a scriptural one. 

I must here explain myself, however, in order to prevent 
mistake in regard to my meaning. The Scriptures certainly 
stand on different ground, from that on which any other book 
rests, on account of their claim to be received as a Revelation 
from God. What other book can plead well authenticated 
miracles, for its support ; or can produce declarations of a 
prophetic nature that have been fulfilled ; or can glory in 
such an exhibition of the principles of piety and virtue — of 
love to God, and of benevolence and beneficence to men? 
Just in proportion, then, as these evidences influence my 
mind to believe that the Bible is of divine origin, in the same 
proportion it becomes improbable to me that this Bible con- 
tains absurdities, errors, or contradictions. When any ap- 
parent error or contradiction attracts my attention, I hesitate 
to pronounce it such as it appears to be. My reason for so 

7* 



78 MOJ ! \ 1 1 IM'Iil TATIOX. [LETT. III. 

doing i-. the strength of the evuknce in favour of its divine 

origin ; which is such that I must do violence to inv convic- 
tions, if I admit that the hook contains either what if erro- 
neous or contradictory. I am then slow to attribute, in any 
MMj Moh B sense to words in the Scriptures, as would make 
a passage speak either absurdity or contradiction. But if, 
after all the light which I could gain, it should appear still to 
be a plain ruse, that there is either ahsurdity or contradiction 
in the sacred text; then I must find a different reading; or 
give up the passage ; or renounce the whole book. I may, 
moreover, merely suspend an opinion, as to doubtful cases. 
My convictions respecting the nature and design of the holy 
Scriptures; the imperfection of my knowledge; diffidence in 
myself — all demand that I should act in this manner. But 
in any char case ; where the meaning of a sacred writer, or 
what he originally designed to say, can be definitely ascer- 
tained by the common laws of interpretation, and it appears 
that this meaning is erroneous, or contradicts some other pas- 
je; I have no right to put a constructive sense upon the 
words, and do violence to the passage, in order to avoid any 
consequences that may follow. I cannot honestly do it. 
The same common sense and reason, which prescribe the 
laws of exegesis, decide thai the meaning of a writer must 
be that which those laws determine it to be. Of course, if I 
put a gloss upon any pas-age, which represents it as convey- 
ing a meaning different from that which the laws of interpre- 
tation would assign to it, I may deceive others, or I may 
\- the interests of party, hut I violate the reason which 
God bas given me by such conduct, and act a part dishorn 
and unworthy of an inquirer after truth. 

If the fundamental maxims of exegesis lead to the belief, 
that a writer of the New Testament has contradicted himself, 
or another Baored writer; then I must revert at once to the 
question : Is the book divine ? Can it be so, if there is con- 
tradiction ? This question I may settle, (on my responsibili- 
ty to ( tod), a- I pleas* But I have no right to violate the 
fundamental rules of language, by forcing a meaning upon 



i r. ill.J MODE 01 in ii i;ri;i i \ i [ON. 70 

the writer to make him consistent, which, a- is obvious on 
the universal principle- of explaining language, be never <!«■- 
tied to convey. In determining the question: Whether 
the writers of the New Testament were inspired? I must al- 
ways in attending to the internal evidence of the books, con- 
r whether they have contradicted each other. To enable 
myself to determine this question, the simple rules of gram- 
matical i \ can never be violated. I must read this 

K, ftti I do all other book-. Then, it' there evidently be 
contradiction, I must reject its claims; it' there he not, and I 
think the evidence is sufficient that they are well founded, I 
must admit them, lint at any period subsequent to this, 
when I have admitted the book to be inspired, I am not at 
liberty to aver, that the writers could never have taught 
some particular principle which I dislike; and therefore do 
violence to the grammatical interpretation, in order to ex- 
plain away any principle of this nature which they seem to 
inculcate. My simple inquiry must be, what sentiment does 
the language of this or that passage convey, without violence 
or perversion of rule ? When this question is settled, phi- 
lologically (not philosophically), then I either believe what 
is taught, or else reject the claim of divine authority. 
What can my own theories and reasonings about the absurdi- 
ty or reasonableness of any particular doctrine, avail in de- 
termining whether a writer of the New Testament has taught 
this doctrine or not? My investigation must be conducted 
independently of my philosophy, by my philology. And 
when I have obtained his meaning, by the simple and univer- 
sal rules of expounding language, I must choose the course I 
will take ; I must either believe his assertion, or reject his 
authority. 

If these be not sound and universal maxims of interpreta- 
tion, I confess myself a stranger to the whole subject ; nor 
can I help thinking that you will accord with me, at once, in 
the views just expressed. 

Guided then by these principles, let us now come to the 



80 9TDCONY OF SCBIPTUI [LETT. III. 

investigation of a few passages in the New Testament, which 
(•(■in the divine nature of Christ. I take this point, be- 
voii have dwell most upon it ; and bee ry ob- 

viously, when this is admitted or rejected, no possible objec- 
tion can be fell to admitting or rejecting the doctrine of the 
Trinity. 

You will not require of me, however, to examine at length 
every text of the New Testament) which I may suppose to 
have any connection with the subject in question. I must be 
permitted, in older to save time and patience, to select only 
those texts, the language of which appears to be genuine, and 
above the condemnation of textual or diplomatic criticism; 
and only such as appear to contain the best and most decisive 
proof of the point to be discussed. Believing the New Tes- 
tament to be of divine origin and authority, you will permit 
me to add, that I cannot think the decision of this or any 
other question, depends on the number of times in which the 
terms of any decision are repeated. The simple question is : 
Is such a doctrine really taught? 

I observe then, 

I. The New Testament gives to Christ the appellation of 
God ; and in such a manner that, according to the fair rules 
of interpretation^ only the supreme God can be meant, 

A conspicuous passage in proof of this, I should find in 
John 1: 1 — S, Ep an/l rjp o AoyoQ y hou o jloyog yv /T^os* top 
0eo?, '/An Qeog /,;• o Aoyog, Ovtog i t r iv aa/i t /T ( >0 *' Tor O^or. 
liana ft a.viov iyereto* xcu £<n£«ff acrov tytvtzo ovdl tr, o 

<>;.•/. •' In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was 
witli ( Sod, and the Word was God. The same was in the be- 
ginning with God. All things were made by him ; and with- 
out him was not anything made that was made." Verse 10, 
.... kou o xoofiog (V avtoi iyevezot u and the world was made 
by him.'' 

All known manuscripts agree in the text here. Griesbach 
baa indeed recorded, that for o Qeog there is a conjectural 
reading, Qeoi ; and that for y.ut Ota* i t r 6 Xoyofj there is a 



i.i tt. III.] i i - riMONI 01 B< MP! nil. "1 

conjectural readii The first of these 

ijectures was made by Crellii Hie reason of making 

h a conjecture, Crellius has L r i\ en. •' The greater ( lui-t is," 
compare d with other tbe Father excepted), 

the n he be expressly called God, hit he tk o t d d he taken 

></ f/,< Father" And again : M If he [Christ] 
had been ailed God by the sacred writers, and had 

distinguished from God, the sacred writers 
would have given an occasion to unskilfbl men, to regard bios 
supreme God." (Inifc BTang.Johan.pb 295.) To libe- 
rate John from being taxed with this imprudence. Crellius 
proposed to substitute Qeov for Qto& in John 1:1. ; so as to 
, the Logos was of God, instead of saying, as John has 
done, that He was God. 

The second conjectural reading is supported by no better 
authority. Bahrdt, (in Neiisten OtVenbarungen), proposed it 
as a happy expedient to relieve the text from the difficulty 
and embarrassment, under which he thought it to labour. For 
instead of saying : " The Word was with God, and the Word 
was God ;" he might then translate it thus : " The Word was 
with God. God was, and this Word was in the beginning 
with God," etc. 

I have a great regard for the labours and learning of Gries- 
bach ; but I am constrained to ask here, why should he have 
condescended to notice conjectures so gratuitous and utterly 
unfounded and uncritical as these. 

I proceed to the explanation of the text. 'Ev doxy corre- 
sponds exactly with the Hebrew rvqftra, Gen. 1: 1. I can- 
not embrace the opinion of those critics, who think that the 
phrase h (i.(>'/j n of itself simply, signifies from eternity. Al- 
though I believe that the Logos did exist from eternity, I do 
not think it is proved directly by this expression. (Compare, 
however, Gen. 1:1.) That existence from eternity is neces- 
sarily implied, may no doubt be properly admitted. Er doxy 
is equivalent to if «(JJJJ y.oouov, in the beginning of the world, 

* Initium Evang. Johan. rcstauratum per L. Bl Artemonium, P. i. c. 1. 



82 8TMONT OF SCRIFI'UBE. [LETT. III. 

i. e. before the world was made; and so agreeing in this par- 
ticular with the phrase, John 17: 5, "the glory that I had 
With thee before the world was ;" and Fph. 1: 4, " before the 
foundation of the world." To say with (Yelliiis. that by Iv 
un/l is meant the commencement of preaching th el, or 

the beginning of Christian instruction, would be making John 
gravely tell US, that before the Logos preached the gospel, he 
had an existence. This may do for Crellius, but not, as I 
think, for Joint. 

Before the world was created then, the Logos existed. 
Who or what was this Logos? A person, or an attribute, of 
God? A real agent, or only the personified wisdom, or rea- 
son, or power of God ? 

It is of no importance in settling this question, that we 
should know with certainty, whence John derived the appella- 
tion Logos. In my own mind, after all the attention to this 
subject that I have been able to pay, the most probable reason 
of the appellation is, that it is bestowed on Christ in reference 
to his becoming the instructor or teacher of mankind, the me- 
dium of communication between God and them. I cannot 
for a moment accede to the opinion that John derived it from 
Plato, or from the Gnostics. With Plato's works it is not 
probable that he busied himself. For the Gnostics, he surely 
had but little respect. Be this however as it may ; the Logos 
appears to be a person, i. e. an agent, and not merely an attri- 
bute. For first, the attributes of God are nowhere else per- 
sonified by the New Testament writers, i. e. the usage of the 
New Testament authors is against this mode of writing. 
Secondly, Logos, if considered as an abstract term, or as 
merely designating an attribute, can here mean only wisdom 
or word; and in what intelligible sense can the wisdom or 
WOrd of God, in the abstract sense, be said to have " be- 
/ // a ml dwelt among us" v. 14 ? Or why should John 
-elect either the wisdom or word of God, as any more con- 
cerned with the incarnation, than the benevolence of God, or 
the mereg of God, which one might suppose would be the at- 
tributes more especially displayed iii such uu occurrence. 



LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 83 

Thirdly, if I gog mean here the power of God, BS many as- 
sert, the exposition is attended with the same difficultly 
Fourthly, if it mean, as others aver, the p&ww of ( rod putting 
vrth, i. e. iii creation, it is liable to the same objections. 

In short, make it any aftrifmte you please of God, and then 
suppose it to l»e thus personified, and you introduce a mode of 
writing that the New Testament nowhere else displays ; and 

which even the Old Testament exhibits hut once (Prov. viii.), 

in a poetic composition of the most animated and exalted 
nature. 

Yrt this is not the chief difficulty. To what class of men 
could John address the asseveration, that the Logos (wisdom, 
word, or power of God) was " with God ?" Where did these 
singular heretics suppose the power of God was, except it was 
with him ? or where his wisdom, or his word ? A peculiar 
pertinacity too in their strange opinion they must have had, 
to induce the apostle to repeat with emphasis, in the second 
verse, that this Logos teas with God. What would be said of 
a man, who should gravely assert that the power of Peter is 
with Peter ; or that his wisdom or his word is so ? And sup- 
pose he should add : The power or wisdom of Peter is Peter — 
with what class of mystics should we rank him? Yet John 
adds : The Logos was God. Until some heretics of the apos- 
tolic age can be discovered, who maintained that the attributes 
of God were not with him, I cannot explain why the apostle 
should assert twice, successively and emphatically, that his 
attributes were with him, in case his meaning was such as is 
here supposed. 

Equally difficult is it for me to divine, how he could say 
that any attribute (either power or wisdom) was God ; un- 
derstanding the word God in any sense you please. If it 
mean supreme God, then it reduces itself to this, either that 
one attribute is the supreme God, or that there are as many 
Gods as attributes. If it mean an inferior God, then the 
wisdom of God being an inferior God, would seem to imply 
that his other attributes are superior Gods ; or else that his 
wisdom holds the place of quasi-god, while his other attri- 



81 TESTIMONY OF SCRII'l TIM . [LETT. III. 

botes occupy a lower place. Suppose then it Bhoald be said, 
that Logos or wisdom denotes the essence of God; yet as 
such it could not be called @eo$ f which always implies an 
<///'/// or person, i.e. it means, as logicians say, -a <->,,, rrcte 
and not an (Attract. The divine nature or essence is called 
f-)Hnn r \ or ro 0efdi>, not d H; o,-. What could be meant, 
moreover, by Ihe essence of God becoming incarnate? 

If howowr it should be said, that the existence of a sect of 
heretics, who held thai the attributes of God were not with 
him, was unnecessary to justify the apostle for having written 
the iir.-t verse Of his gospel, and that we may regard this 
verse as written simply for general instruction ; then I would 
ask, whether a revelation from heaven is necessary to in- 
struct us, that the attributes of <i being ore with (hat being? 
And what shall we think, moreover, of the assertion, that the 
wisdom or power of God IS God himself? 

We proceed to the second clause : Km 6 Xoyog rp itqoq toy 
Qtor. and the Logos was with God; i. e. as all agree, with 
God the Father. Compare vs. 14, 18, also chap. 17: 5, 
and 1 John 1:1,2; which make the point clear. Is this i 
pression capable of any tolerable interpretation, without sup- 
posing that the Logos, who was with God, was in some re- 
spect or other different or diverse from that God with -whom 
lie was? This Logos was the same that became incarnate, 
V. 14; that made the most perfect revelation of the will and 

character of God to men, v. 18 ; and was called Christ. lie 

was therefore, in some respect, diverse from the Father, and 

by no mean- to be confounded with him. Tel we must not 

caity this BO far a8 to make him a being separate and inferior 
to such a degree as to be in all respects another and an inte- 
rior being: for this would contradiet the remaining part of 

the verseL See above, pp. 88 seq., Bl seq. 

Kcu Qebg rp 6 X6yo$, and the L<>g<>s was <i<><i. It has been 
proposed, (in the so-called [mpr. Vers, of the X. Test.), to 
render the word ©eo£, a god. Does then the Christian re. 
lation admit of gods superior and inferior? And if BO, to 
what class of inferior goda does the Logos belong? And 



II.] I ;:i . 

how much would such a theory of divine natures, differ from 
that which admits a Jupiter Optima* ifaximuc, and gods to 
an indefinite number greater and 

Bui it La said, that M 06otf is destitute of the artieU) and 
tin r annot designate the divine being, who h supreme.'" 

This vation, however] i> veiy fat from being jnstiuVd, 

either by the usage of tli i writers, Of the principles of 

Greek syntax. Among instancei where the supreme GUd is 
ainly designated, and yet the article IS omitted, the tar 
quirer may consult the very chapter in question, \ I. 6* 13, 18 ; 
alM> lfatt. TJ: 2& Luke 10: 13. John & 33. Ifc SO. Rom. 

3. 1 Cor. 1: 3. GaL 1: 1. Ephes. 2: 8. Ileb. 9: 14. Ue- 
S every well informed reader of Greek knows, that where 
the subject of a proposition (which in this case is 6 koyog) 
has the article, the predicate (Qtog) usually omits it. Such 
is general Greek Osage ; and from it commonly dissent only 
propositions of a reciprocating or convertible nature, as in 
v. 4 of the chapter in question. It may be added too, that if 
the writer in question had said y.iu o leyog l\v 6 Geo*,*, it would 
have conveyed a very different idea from that of the propo- 
sition as it now stands. John would then have said : The 
Logos is the God with whom he is ; or the only God ; whereas 
I understand &eog here to mean a divine nature, simply but not 
abstractly considered, for which it so often stands in other 
places. Vide Mark 8: S3. 10: 27. 12: 24. Luke 3: 8. 11: 20. 
18: 4, 19. John 1: 13. 3: 2. 4: 24. 10: 33. Acts 5: 20. 7: 55. 
10: 33. 11: 18 et al. saepe. 

I readily acknowledge, that affirmative evidence of the 
somewhat diverse meaning of Qeog here, cannot be drawn 
merely from the word itself; it must be deduced from the 
circumstances of the affirmation, united with the supposition 
that John did assert, and did mean to assert, something that 
is intelligible. There is indeed no very serious difficulty in 
taking &*6g (God) in the same sense in both clauses, pro- 
vided we understand it to denote the divinity. To interpret 
the verse thus, would represent John as saying, that while 
Christ was God or truly divine, there w T as at the same time, 

8 



t% ii.~n.MoNV Ol TUBS. [lktt. ill. 

a sense in which h God, In order thai this -hould 

have any possible meaning, a distinction in the Godhead of 
some kind must be admitted, viz. that the Father ifl nofl in all 
i eta the Bame as the Son. 
For myself, I do not hesitate to understand the word t 
in a sense somewhat diverse 1 , in the two clauses of the n 

iimhr consideration. Kvery word takes a sense adapted to 
it- connection. Such is the rule which mast be adopted* 
after we have once conceded that a writer uses words with 
propriety, and designs to be understood. So, when our 
Saviour says : "Let the dead bury their dead," the connec- 
tion requires OS to explain it thus: * Let those who are mor- 
ally or spiritually dead, bury those who are corporeally so.' 
It were easy to accumulate examples, where the very same 
word, in the same raree, has two different shades of sense. 
The exigency of the passage (exigentia luci) is the rule of 
interpretation which guides us here. And guided by this 
exigency, what difficulty is there in supposing that God as 
Father, is meant, in the first instance; and the divine nature, 
without any special reference to the peculiar distinction of 
Father, in the Beeond ? 

I understand John then as affirming, that the Logo* was 
God, and yet was with God ; viz. that lie was truly divine, 
but still divine in such a manner, that there did exist a dis- 
tinction between him and the Father. I take the word 6W, 
in one case, to mean, as in a great number of cases it does 
mean, God a- Father) in the other case, I regard it as a 
distinction of divine being, of the divinity, without reference 
to the distinction of Father; a use of the word which is 
very common. 

Least of all have these a right to object to this, who lure 
make the meaning of Gc 7 . in the BeCOnd instance, to be inli- 
nitely different from its meaning in the first instance ; under- 
standing by the first) a created, or derived and finite being; 

by the second, the self-existent, independent, and intinin 
[fyoa ash now \ What could be the object of John in 

rting that tie I with Oodt 1 answer, that the 



r. III.] RIPTURE. W 

phrase to be with ), indicates conjunct 

r Mark 9: L9. Compare too John 1: 

LA, where the only begotten Son •• in the bosom 

f the Father," which i- a phrase of simi- 
lar import. 

(but not fully explain) the meaning of the 

phrs i ', it is useful also to compare those oai 

wh« istians are promised as the Bummit of their felicity, 

that they shall he with God and Christ, be where they are. 

2J other pa John 1 1: 2, ;>. 12: 26. 17: 2 1. 

I Tbess. 1: 17. Compare Kom. 8: 17. 2 Tim. 2: 11, 12.— 

*. 3: 1—1. 

John 17: 5, Christ speaks of that " glory, which he had 

ather, before the world was/' From all these pas- 

taken together, it would seem that the assertion: The 

■'Ui God t amounts to an assertion that he was con- 

juru -s Deo, i. e. most intimately connected with God. 

If you ask me Ituic t I answer freely, that I cannot tell. 

The evangelist has merely asserted the fact, but has not 

added one word to explain the modus. If I could explain it, 

then I suppose I could define the distinction which I believe 

to exist in the Godhead. 

But why should John assert such a connection ? In oppo- 
sition, I answer, to those in early times, who asserted that 
Christ was a being not only distinct from God, hui an emana- 
tion from him ? The asseveration, that the Logos was with 
God — was from the beginning most intimately connected with 
him, and was divine — would of course contradict such an 
opinion. 

But does the evangelist here mean to assert of the Logos, 
that he is God in the supreme sense, or not ? This is the 
fundamental question between us. Analogy, drawn from the 
New Testament usage of the word 060£, (which nowhere 
else employs &eog dimply and singly, except to designate the 
supreme God), must be admitted strongly to favour the idea, 
that Christ is here asserted to be truly divine. I readily 
allow that in the Old Testament, the word God has various 










r«, thea, 



IL, 



:i-: 



the Lo2o§ created, tmb, (as 

1 i— ajuiil r. ML Here, 
1: 1 seq- it a pirwgr, in which beyond all rea- 
ChristkcaUed Orf; aad where the col 

GW in an inferior sense, (m k 

that ttis G*c jo was the Zaye*, 

la he, who created the nahtrae, tnriy and 
Oo this questionl 
I hare ««aier-d 
of creation t* 
Heh. 1: — . AW' 2> juLT ivjz<L\ zbou, rip jf* 





- ~ ■ ;- . - ~ - ' - - • 



mm 6* &uuu9&£ - tlmi nurttz a 

em 6Jt o wrro* a. 7JL. 
Amiz Tut**. Lord, ia the 

in of the earth, and the ) Man* of 

i jea al 
oldasdotha 




90 -timony Of BCBIPTT7BB. [LBTT. III. 

These worth we spoken of the Son of God; for they are 
intimately connected by the conjunction md with v. 8, where 
it is written : * % 1 >ut ante the Son be Math," etc. According 
to the law- of grammar, and moat clearly according to the 
nature and design of the apostle's argument, the ellipsis to be 

supplied, in the beginning of the tenth verse, after and (y.ai) 
is: M And [to the Son he saith]: Thou, Lord," etc. Hs 
other exposition can he pointed out, which does not mak< 
violent divulsion of the passage from the connection of the 
writer's srgament 

The question still remains: ' What is meant by founding 
tjic earth, and by the heavens being the work of Christ's 
hands ? To answer the Bret question, and place the answer 
above the possibility of a reasonable doubt, it is necessary 
only to compare the passages, in which Jehovah is said to 
have founded the earth. By this phrase, the creation of it 
is indubitably meant. The passages may be found in Pa. 
1M: ft 8fc 11. 10-1: 5. 119: 90. Job 38: 1. Prov. 3: 19. Is. 
48: 13. 51: 13. Zee. 12: 1; where, if you inspect the Sep- 
toagtnt, von will see the very verb (ihuthoco) employed, 
which the apostle uses in our text. 

In regard to the k * heavens being the work of Christ's 
hands,'' it is an expression plainly equivalent to the one just 
Considered, and signifies the creation of the heavens. Thus 
in Fs. 8: h 6: "When I consider the heavens, the work of 
thjf hands ;" which is parallel with u The moon and Staffs 
which thou hast ordained ;" (Sept. e&spsJUaHfo?). So in v. 
6: u And bast placed him over the work of thy hands j all 
things hast thou put under his feet;" i. e. placed him owr 
the creation. 

To prove that the phrase to create the heavens and the 
earth, means to create all things it is necessary only to con- 
sult ( Ian. 1: 1. Ex. 20: 11. ;il: 17. Neh. 9: 6. Ps. 1*1:3. 
IlM: 8. 134: S, and other like passages, which any Concord- 
ance w ill .-apply. 

It will be remembered, that the passage in question (Heb. 



r. in.] | N i;irrri:i:. 01 

1: l is a quotation from the Old Testament; and that 

t<» quote the 1 ' ihc 0. Test., therefore, in order to 

tin it, i-> peculiarly appropriate and necessary. 

Would any one, now, unembarrassed by peculiarity 

uspect that Christ's founding the earth) and the 

heat f kU i -. oould mean anything 

lets than the creation of the universe? Y» t we have been 

distinguished Unitarians, that the heavens 

mean the ( m state or dispensation, and the earth the 

one, 

lint first, this is against usage, either in the Old or New 

lent : there being nothing to support such a sense of 

it. Isaiah speaks indeed of creating a new heaven and a 

m.w earthy (65: 17) ; and o( planting the heavens and the 

ih (51: 16), in a moral sense, i. e. making a moral change 
or creation. But then the language itself, in the first case, 
indicates that the old or material creation is not meant; and 
in the second case, the context makes it as clear, what kind 
of heaven and earth is to be planted or established, and what 
the planting and establishing of them means, for it shows 
plainly that the Jewish church and state are to be renewed 
and established. The meaning then assigned by some Uni- 
tarians to the passage in Ileb. i, is against the plain and con- 
stant usage of the Scriptures, in regard to such expressions, 
when they occur in an unlimited form, as they do in the pas- 
sage under examination. 

Secondly, if the Jewish and the Christian states are here 
meant, in what sense are they to wax old as a garment, and 
to be changed? Of the Jewish state this might, without 
much difficulty, be affirmed. But how the Christian dispen- 
sation is to be changed, how that " kingdom which shall have 
no end" (Luke 1: 33), is to "perish," I am unable to ex- 
plain. 

" It is a moral creation of which Christ is the author," says 
Artemonius (i. e. Crellitis), Init Evang. Johan. This, how- 
ever, does not explain the matter ; for how is it that the 
moral creation of Christ is to be changed and perish, i. e. to 



92 UE. [LETT. III. 

be annihilated. Id t obviously, his moral creation is to be 
oal. 
Another method of explaining this subject baa been, to 
a\<r that the passage here quoted by the apostle from Ps« 
102: 25 — 27, is in the original, plainly applicable to Jeho- 
vah only ; and thai none would conjecture, from the simple 
perusal of this Psalm, how Christ could be the Bubject of it. 
Conceding that the passage is applicable to Jehovah only, 
(and ii would be difficult to show why this is not to be con- 
ceded), what is the consequence? Either that the apostle 
has, directly and without qualification, applied to Christ lan- 
guage used by an inspired writer of the (). Test, to desig- 
nate the Creator of the world, with his eternal and immuta- 
ble nature ; or that he has, (in a way singular indeed for a 
man of piety and honesty and intelligence), accommodated 
language descriptive of the infinite Jehovah only, to a crea- 
ted and dependent being. Kvoit (Lord), in the Greek, cor- 
responds to the word rrrr (Jehovah) in the original Hebrew; 
the Septuagint having commonly rendered it is this manner. 
And although hiit^ {Jehovah) in not in the Hebrew text, (Ps. 
1<»2: 26), yet it is evident from the preceding context, that it 
must be understood there, as the subject of the verb ft'jbj , 
thou hast founded. Christ then is here called by the apostle, 
Jehovah ; and eternity, immutability, and the creation of the 
universe are ascribed to him.* 

* I readily admit, that ici \ toj is not alwa\ - mous with J< ; 

But where 1 ■•!. in the Bebrew of the Old Testa- 

ment stands in the Septuagint and in the New Testament, as the 

habitual translation of it. Therefore nvpiof in the New Testament must 
h cases, have the same meaning as Jehovah in the old 
T» stamenl The reason why Kvpioi \s used by the New Testament-wri- 
lation of •' in the Hebrew Scriptures, is, that the 

ling their -acred writings, were not accustomed to pronounce 
"""' . but for the most part they read ";""">* (/ 
'";) in the room ofit This custom is at least as old as the Septua- 
gint version, which translates '"•""" by i and thus it exhibits 
if, that the modern custom of reading " T -""^ for ~"iT was then re- 
ligiously .' - phua Bp< ///, as the name which 
i lawful to "" 



LETT. III.] TESTIMONY 01 PTURE. H 

tnnol think thai the paraphrase of GrothiSj on the pas- 

■ • in question, deservi ious refutation* ^Thouwast 

the cause," Bays be, " that the earth was founded, and on thy 

>unt the heavens were made* 91 It' this be not a different 
thing from what the language of the apostle naturally means, 

Can in- 'an. I Confess that I know not any hounds which 

may he Bet to paraphrastic and mystical exegesis. Suppose 

now that the GnOBtics, who maintained that evil demons (and 
ah) created the material world, should still have 

paraphrased the first verse in ( Genesis in this manner : " Thou 

Jehovah wast the cause why the heavens and the earth were 

aed: and when asked, how this could consist with their 

ttiments, and what they could mean by it, they should have 
replied: " Out of enmity to thee, the evil demons brought 
this world of matter into existence ;" would not this be ex- 
plaining away the creative act of Jehovah, exactly as Gro- 
tius explains away the evidence, in the passage last adduced, 
that Christ was the Creator? 

Col. 1: 15 — 17. 0§ tanv ttxwv rov &eov rov doodrov, 
rroeo 70 roxrv ftaarjQ y.n'ottog ■ on iv avrco vatig^i] rd ndvza, 
rd i v zolg OVQavoig hcu rd en) tfjg fijg, rd onard Mat id do- 
oaza, tize &QOTOI, t'ize y.vniozijreg, size doyui, are i^ovaua ' 
id nana 8$ uvzov -/.at eig uvzov txriorut * yul uvzog Ian 
nob ndi'Twr, y.ut rd ndvzu Iv uvzco avrtartjxe 9 " Who is 
the image of the invisible God, the head of all creation ; for 
by him were all things created, both celestial and terrestrial, 
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, 
or principalities, or powers ; all things were created by him 
and for him ; and he is before all things, and by him all 
things consist." 

In the first clause (nncorozoxog 7zdar t g xrioecog) I have de- 
parted a little from our common version, merely in order to 
make what I consider to be the plain meaning of the pas- 
sage, as clear as the nature of the case will permit. 

Because Christ is said (in v. 20) "to reconcile (y.uzu).Xd^ 
at) all things unto himself," and these are said to be " things 
in heaven and things on earth ;" and afterwards he is also 



94 BTIMONT 01 MKl . [LETT. III. 

repn I aa breaking down the wall of partition between 

Jews and Gentiles; some ingenious commentators have Bug- 

id, thai u things in heaven and things on earth" mean 

V and G How very unnatural this explanation is, 

no one can help feeling who reads the passage in an unbi- 

d manner. In what tolerable sense can the Jews and 
called " things visible and invisible?' Or how 
shall we explain the phrase, " things in heaven and things on 
earth," as applied to them ? By " reconciling things in heav- 
en and things on earth/' seem- evidently to be meant the 
bringing into union, under one great head, i. e. Christ, by a 
new and special bond of intercommunication, both angels 
and men. In like manner, the two great parties on earth, 
Jew- and (ientilrs. are united together. But why Christ 

llld be called "the image of the invisible God," and the 
u head {nQWf&tOHog) of all creation," because lie is merely 
the instrument of bringing Jews and Gentiles together, is not 
apparent to me. Yet to be such an instrument, is all that 
the passage in question ascribes to him, if we are to construe 
it in the manner above related. Hut when we understand 
tin; words of the apostle as describing the creation of the 
worlds celestial and terrestrial, (01 ovnuro) Hcu t] yJ r , comp. 
Ilcb. 1: 10 — 12), and ascribing it to Christ, then we lind suf- 
ficient reason for designating him by the exalted appellations 
in question. 

It has also been affirmed, that a moral creation only is 
here ascribed to Christ. But word- like these, in such a con- 
nexion and with BUCh adjunct.-, are no where else used in 
BUCb a sense. Moreover, in what sense has the moral crea- 
tion by Christ affected the angels? The good ones needed 
not repentance or pardon ; the bad ones have never sought 
or obtained either. " Verilj he did not assist the angels (fid 
( V 7 '"' wyy&OM trrt/.i'.iifjiutria), but the seed of Abraham," 

Heb. 2: 16. 

Until I see different light shed over the pas in ques- 

tion, I mU8l regard it, therefore, as very clearly ascribing the 

■ ation of the universe to Christ* 



T.I.I I. III.] PTURE. 05 

Bul yon will say, perhaps, thai in John 1:8, all things 
are said to be made by Christ (fl**i V- rr©i Pm- 

mental and not the principal cause 5 the preposition 8id usu- 
ally denoting such instrumental cause. In CoL I: 16 it 

id, that all thin created by Christ (< v w) ; 

and in II<1>. l: 2, God is said to have created the worlds by 
// <>t (sc viov) xcu rovg aicSvag (no(t k 

The allegation, however, thai did does not designate the 
■"/ as well as the instrumented cause, can by no means 
be supported. Jn Romans 11: 86, all things are said to be 
of God (e| avrov), and 2y God (di avrov) ; which is the very 
form of expression applied to Christ, in Col. I: 1G — 20. So 
Heb, 2: 10 : " For it became him [God the Father], for 
whom (oV or) are all things, and by whom (81 ov) are all things, 
etc. 1 Cor. 1:0: " God is faithful, by whom (di ov) ye were 
called into the fellowship of his Son," etc. But to prove 
that tW may be and is employed before a noun designat- 
ing a principal cause, is utterly superfluous to any one who 
has a good Greek lexicon at his command. To deny this, 
in the present state of philology, is fairly out of question. 

The principal difficulty remaining is, to explain the phrase, 
"by whom (oV ov) he [the Father] made the worlds;" Heb. 
1: 2. The apostle has added sufficient, in vs. 10 — 12, as it 
might seem, to prevent mistake here. If, however, the diffi- 
culty seems still to press, it may be compared with Hos. 1: 
7, "I [Jehovah] will have mercy upon the house of Judah, 
and will save them by Jehovah, n-n-2." Is the second Jeho- 
vah merely the instrumental cause, in this case ? Of the 
same nature is the phraseology in Gen. 10: 24, " And Jeho- 
vah rained down, upon Sodom and Gomorrha, fire and brim- 
stone from jeiiovaii out of heaven." Must the last Jeho- 
vah, in this case, be inferior to the first? If not, then the 
phrase that God made the worlds by his Son, does not imply, 
as a matter of course, that the Son is of an inferior nature. 
It does imply, indeed, that there is a distinction between 
Father and Son ; and this is what we aver to be a scripture- 
doctrine. It seems plainly to declare, also, that God as Son 



96 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III. 

was in an especial manner concerned ivith the creation of the 
worlds. If the Logos, as John asserts, made all things, what 
is there impossible or improbable in this ? 

From the passages of Scripture thus far considered, it ap- 
pears plain, that the apostles have ascribed the creation of the 
universe to Christ. And now we come, next in order, to 
the consideration of the simple question : Whether he who 
created the world, is really and truly divine ? 

First, then, permit me to ask, if the act of creation does 
not prove the being who performs it to be omniscient, om- 
nipotent, and independent, then how is it possible to conceive 
of anything, which does or can prove the existence of such 
a Being ? To bring this world into existence from nothing ; 
to establish such perfect harmony and design through all the 
operations of nature ; to set in motion unnumbered worlds 
and systems of worlds, and all in the most perfect harmony 
and order ; requires more intelligence, more power, and more 
wisdom, than ever belonged to any finite being. And if 
these things do not characterize the infinite Being, it seems 
to me that no proof of the existence of such a Being can be 
adduced. 

It is in vain to tell me here, that the creation of the uni- 
verse can be accomplished by delegated power, i. e. by an 
inferior and subordinate being. What can be meant by om- 
nipotence, omniscience, and infinite wisdom, (all of which 
must belong to a Creator), being delegated 1 } Can God dele- 
gate his perfections ? If so, then the Gnostics, when pressed 
with the argument that Jehovah, the God of the Jews, was 
the supreme God, because he created the heavens and the 
earth, might have replied, that he did this only by delegated 
power ; and that the act of creation, therefore, proves nothing 
as to Godhead. Would you not reply to such an allegation, 
that the act of creating the universe is one which no finite or 
secondary being can perform ? If this act do not designate 
the absolute, supreme, omnipotent, and omniscient Being, 
then no proof that such a Being exists can possibly be ad- 
duced. 



LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 97 

Why may we not use, now, the very same arguments, to 
confute those who maintain that Christ created the world by 
delegated power? The apostle having decided the question 
that Christ did create the world, has decided, consequently, 
that he must be truly divine. 

Agreeably to this reasoning, the Bible everywhere appeals 
to creative power, as the peculiar and distinguishing preroga- 
tive of the supreme God, and attributes it solely to Jehovah. 
Let any one read, for example, Gen. 2: 2, 3. Ex. 20: 11. 
Is. 44: 24. Jer. 10: 12. Ps. 8: 3, 4. 102: 25, and other pas- 
sages of the same tenor. Let him read Isaiah xl. and on- 
ward, where God by his prophet makes a most solemn chal- 
lenge to all polytheists, to bring the objects of their worship 
into competition with him ; and he declares himself to be dis- 
tinguished from them all, by his being " the Creator of the 
ends of the earth" (v. 28), and by his having formed and ar- 
ranged the heavens, (v. 26.) 

Can it be made plainer than these passages make it, that 
creative power was regarded by the Hebrew prophets, as the 
appropriate and peculiar attribute of the supreme God ? Need 
I say, that the O. Test, is filled with passages which ascribe 
the work of creation to Jehovah alone ? Who does not find 
them everywhere intermixed, in the most delightful and af- 
fecting manner, with all the instructions of the sacred He- 
brew writers ? 

Now if a subordinate agent, a finite spirit, did create the 
universe, why should all the instructions of the O. Test, be 
so framed, as inevitably to lead the Jewish nation to dis- 
believe and reject this fact ? Specially so, as the Jews were 
very strongly inclined to polytheism ; and a plurality of gods 
would have been very agreeable to their wishes. And why, 
after a lapse of so many centuries, should the writers of the 
New Testament controvert all that the Hebrew Scriptures 
had taught on this subject, and lead men to admit that a fi- 
nite being could and did create the world ? Most of all, how 
could Paul say (Rom. 1: 20), that the heathen were without 
excuse for not acknowledging the eternal power and godhead 

9 



98 BTTMONT OF SCRTFTITRE. [LETT. HI. 

of the Divinity, because of the evidence which his creating 
power afforded — beca isethey could look upon the things that 
were made, an n from them. 

Ami is this truth, (thai the Deitj p< eternal power 

and godhead), bo plain then, and so easily deduced from cre- 
ating i KEB6Y, that the very heathen are destitute of all ex- 
CQse, for ik ig and admitting it, and yet, can it be the 

object of Christianity to bring US hack to the very polytheism 
for which the apostle condemned them? To bring us to 

a Worship the creature as the CREATOR?" Does Christiani- 
ty contradict a truth of natural religion so plain and incontro- 
vertible, that the very heathen were without excuse for not 
acknowledging it ? And after reading such a passage in the 
writings of Paul, can it he possible to suppose, that he as- 
cribed the creation of the world to any being but the true God 
only? Compare now Acts 17: 23 — 2G, with John 1: 1 — 3, 
and 10; Heb, 1: 10—12; Colos. 1: 14—17; and then say 
whether it is possible to admit the rules of interpretation 
which you have laid down, and not admit that the apostles 

designed to assert, thai Christ i- the creator of the universe? 

And if he is BO, i- it possible to deny that he i< truly divine? 
It were easy to produce passages of the New Testament 
in abundance, which ascribe the same works to Christ as to 
God; e. g. John 5. 17—23. 1 I: f>, 11. and the like. But 
the vindication of these would swell these letters beyond their 
proper length, I -hall not enter into the discussion of them at 

present I am not anxious to increase the number of wit- 
nesses; for acknowledging the New Testament to be of di- 
vine authority, 1 consider whatever it plainly declares once 
to be the truth. The relevancy and plainness of the testimo- 
ny, therefore, i- more the object of my solicitude, than the 
nmnhcr of witnesses ; a point, T may add, in which many 
who have defended our sentiments have greatly erred. 

1 -hall proceed, therefore, to other texts of Scriptur 
which Christ is declared to be God. 

Rom. 9: 5. --> "/' sTor/pes, na\ :-'S on o KguTrog, to x< 
Giiny.u, o eSf tm ffdm iXoytjrbg efc rtwg almag " 



I. III.] T&> 09 

j. •• v. . in ret] 
in oat a j dj, wb 
. over all, blew u" 
Ii . Brat, that al- 
though ( «i ■.• filled kit otniml and 
other readii any of 

thrni : Jtle to tl. 

which hav- : as 

Jn rendering 

by correspond' in Bool 1: 

3.* And that d cur im nwntai Beogj whop/rig 

Mg roiy Si "H translated, info is n tprtmt G 

blessed \ wn in variou- ifl 

here put. as b common, (e. g. John 1: 18. •*>: 13. 2 Cor. 11: 

olj. li The gTound of this lies limply in 

nature ot . usage. Whenever o is used for of, it 

takes the participle cur instead of the verb wm'j and so we 
have i cur, or o 5 ' Mm, invariably. 

literally over-all God. i. e. supreme 
God. One should compare with the phraseology here the 
word mmrza (all ) 1 with respect to the dominion of 

Christ, in Col. 1: 17. Eph. I: 23. John 3: 31, and 1 Cor. lft 
It is used in such passages in order to describe him as 
the head or ruler of the univ i . What then can im nav 
tcoj Qd6g mean, but supreme ' • 

Bat on no text have greater pains been bestowed, in order 
to d Q unusual construction and meaning. Schlichting 

proposed to transpose o cor, and read cor o ; i. e. of whom 
[viz. tl. sh fathers] is God. blessed forever. But as in 

this le, the apostle has laboured to prove that God 

bet 11 to the Gentil the Jews (ch. 3: _ . this 

e.\| seem to impeach the apo icy, 

as well as violate the text. Nor would the text itself, as 
amended by Sehliehting's conjecture, be in any measure ac- 
cordant with the idiom of the Greek language. If Qeog has 

* ^ :.'ls in the Textna Reoq I 



100 TESTIMONY Of SCRffTUKE. [LETT, ill. 

Mm irtiofei (and his transposition makes it o 9eog), then 
wiXopfto^ must of necessity have it too; inasmuch as an ad- 
ctivc Following a nonn with an article, and agreeing with 
it, of necessity takes the article. 

WetStein'fl conjecture, that it should he read (<>i\ 6 Wfl 
mirtmf 0SO£, i- not any more fortunate. Such a mode of 

expression as s sh» o,all relating to the same subject, is repug- 
nant to Greek osage* Besides, this conjecture, like that of 
Schlichting, not only violates the integrity of the text, but 
assigns the article to Qtng 9 and omits it before BvXop/tfei 
which is surely inadmissible* 

Enough of amending the apostle's words by conjecture, 
without the authority of a single manuscript or ancient ver- 
sion. Critical acumen has aho employed itself, in dividing 
and translating the verse in question, in a manner different 
from that in our common Testament The late Professor 
Justi, at Harporg, a man of some acuteness and much taste, 
undertook to defend the ingenious supposition, that the latter 
part of the verse is a doxology. He renders it thus : " Whose 
ancestors were those [renowned] fathers from whom the 
Messiah, as to his mortal body, was derived, who is exalted 
over all [the fathers], God be blessed forever !" Thus, by 
the aid of supplying an idea not contained in the text, and by 
doimr violence to the usages of lan^ua^e in the doxological 
part, he has devised a method in which w r e may avoid the 

lertion that Christ is God over all or supreme God. But 
who docs not perceive the violence and inaptitude of the 
divulsion which he makes, by separating the former from the 
latter part of the ver>e. Besides, how would a doxology lit 

the passage in question? Crellius, (Init Kvang. Johau. p. 

230, 287), long ago was candid enough to own, that when 
the apostle was affected with the greatest sadness, on account 
of the unbelief of his Jewish brethren and the loss of their 
'privileges, a doxohxpj or exclamation of praise was not very 
ceagrQOQS. A prayer (as in eh. 10: 1) would seem, as he 
think-, to he much more appropriate. 

Omitting however all this, it may be added, that Greek 



LETT. II CfiflTIMQtKl 01 SCRIPTURE. 101 

by no [>u— Utility admits of the doxological version of 

yijToj means God who ie bkeeed, i. <*. the 

proj in bucL a ease is assumed, not asserted. But 

means < s , or lei God be Hem d 

or j In accordance with this Greek usage, we find 

five instances of d in the New Testament, and ahout 

v in the Old, in whim wXop/tog is uniformly placed first 

The same o served in respect to /AiTunaio^ (cursed), 

when an imprecation is uttered. 

B tsides, the text mus be changed to make out a doxology ; 
tor we IRU«t read QtOQ instead of Qi 6g t since universal 
zvkoytjTog a Qeog, (The instance in l\s. 
46: 19. Sept., brought by Stoltz in his ErletUerungen, to sup- 
port Justi's rendering, depends merely on wrong punctuation, 
and the repetition of a word which does not correspond to the 
Hebrew text.) 

Finally, if a doxology to the Father were intended here, 
it is scarcely possible to suppose, that some particle of transi- 
tion should not have been inserted, in order to give notice of 
so great a change. But no text, no manuscript, no ancient 
version, gives us a trace of such a particle. To invent a new 
ling and force it upon the text, or to substitute a conjec- 
tural reading which originated merely from theological specu- 
lation, and all this when the evidence of the integrity of the 
text is incontrovertible — what is it but to introduce a princi- 
ple fundamentally subversive of all interpretation and criti- 
cism, and to give up the Scriptures to be moulded according 
to every man's own wishes ? 

All conjectures, and theories, then, appear to be quite in- 
competent to explain away the common rendering of the 
verse, and the meaning connected with it. On the other 
hand, we may ask : I low comes it that Christ, accordiny to 
hie human nature (to y.aru oiar/.a), is said to have descended 
from the fathers ? What if I should affirm that David, as to 
his human nature, was descended from Jesse? Would you 
not of course ask, what other nature had he except a human 
one ? And such an inquiry, forced upon us by the method 

9* 



102 HOHT OF S< UIPTt'RE. [LETT. III. 

of txpression in question, the apostle has immediatel j an* 

■ as to his nature n<>t human, he ai OerU that he 

me God, blessed forever; Amen." To have 

aitors of the lnunau nature of such an exalted 
beiBg a- Christ) the SpOStle reckon- a- one of the special 
privileges which the .Jews had enjoyed. Comp. Rom. 
1—1. 

1 do nol argue that Christ is divine, merely because the 
appellation Qeig is bestowed upon him. Bat if e w* wn 
udmiw &tia be not supreme God; and if the antithesis in 
this reuse do not require m to understand a divine nature 
here ; t!;< D I must despair of ever discovering the sentiment 
of any tea of Scripture, by appealing to any or all the rules 
of e I 

Ibh. I: s, ( .). 'o Oqopos c>ov, o £so?, sig wop ni&m ft* 
oOpos oq ev&vttpog >] $d@do€ rijg fimaiXtUw gov. IFyu- 

mfffag I KcuoGvnpt, hcu ifuatpaG uroittur, diu iovio tffufi 
ae o too?, o faos; gov, thuov dya/./.tuGaou' nana rov^ utTn- 
yoi\ % gov. * 4 Hut unto the Sun he smith : Thy throne, O God, 
is folteVer and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre 
of thy kingdom* Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated 
iniquity: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with 
the oil of gladness above thy fellows." 

This passage is quoted from Pa. 45: G, 7. It has been 
objected, that o &i6g here should not be translated as a Voca- 
tive but as a Nominative; e. g. " God is thy throne forever 
hid ever, or thine everlasting throne or eternal support." 

So far as the form of the word is concerned, o (-)tn*; is the 
common Vocative of the New Testament and the Septuagint. 
No objection, therefore, to the usual rendering of this verse 

in the Vocative ease, ean be made from the form of the word ; 

for the practice of assigning a Yoeativo sense to a Nomina- 
tive form, is altogether common in Hellenistic Greek. The 
Attics often adopt the .-ante usage* One needs only to open 
the Septuagint in the book of Psalms, or in almost any other 
part, to tee incontrovertible evidence that o ©*0£ is the com- 
mon Vo ative of the Hellenistic writers. 



LETT. III.] V OF ICBflPTURV. 103 

transl ' m, i. e. thy sup] 

ctions may !»«' 111:1 
ill ^7edoes not permit such a D. The 

subject :\n<\ cannot both have the article, in a case 

like this, God is k: 

^poi .' For such a cl in the text there 

rity wh 

I render insipid th neat 

of t stle, in thia cha] the preeminently • 

of this illustrious | 
iod is thy tl i. •-. thy support, might weD the 

whom the epistle was addressed to ask: And who 
is not supported by God? I! m it help to show that 

Christ is entitled to high pr e emimm i e, by alleging that an- 
other being is his support 

(3) Such a translation contradicts the meaning of the word 
throne, understood either literally or figuratively. Literally 
it is the seat on which kings sit. This sense is here out of 
the question. Figuratively, it stands for dominion, empire, 
regal authority, because it is one of the symbols of such au- 
thority. But I know of no such figurative sense to this word 
liat of support. And wh would it make 

to | J thy d y regal authority t If you 

aver that this may mean as much as to say : God is the cause 
of thy rity .• then I ask again, of 

what k Lominion and authority is not God the cause ? 

not the universal doctrine of the Bible, that * by him ki 
reign, and princes decree justice ? v And how then is Christ 
entitled to any pr anse God is the cause of his 

dominion ? Or what advances does the apostle make in his 
iment, by such an assertion ? 
To the translation in question, there is still anotherobjection, 
which is drawn from the nature of Hebrew parallelism in poet- 
ry. The verse ai -cussion plainly is one. in which the 

* with the article) 

. . it it) th according to the 

uiual laws of the lang _ 



10 1 J BSTDfOlTT 01 i u:r.. [LETT. III. 

une in both parte) i. e. U u i synonymous 

parallelism. Now the second member of this is : M The 

ptre of thj kingdom m b aceptre of right - :" in 

other words, thy dominion is ri(//t(rnt/s. The firs! member of 
thr parallelism, consequently, is to be explained in the same 
way. and evidently means : Thy dominion (throw 

histiicj. What could be mon* tasteless or unmeaning here, 
than to say: God is thy throne, meaning to say: God II thy 
Bttpport or cause of dominion, when the evident object of* the 
writer is to show the preeminent dignity and dominion of the 
Son of God ? 

The proposed mode of rendering, then, violates Greek 

usage : it frustrates the argument of the apostle ; it forces an 

unexampled meaning upon {tnoroj; and finally it transgres- 

the laws of poetic parallelism in the Hebrew original, 

from which the passage iras taken. 

Jiut several objections have been made against understand- 
ing the word Oodi in the passage now under consideration, 
in its highest sense when applied to Christ. It is said, thai 
the person called God ( Elokim) here, is addressed as having 
a God above him, fhjf God; and also, as having fellows who 
BTQ merely king- ; and therefore that he cannot be supreme 
God. As to the mere application of the name God, in this 
ease, I should not be disposed to make more out of it, than 
that it designates the King Messiah as L>>rd of all. So much 
rtain, viz. his supremacy over all others. His 
throne, i. S. dominion, is everlasting. As the Messiah, the 
anointed king, it might with the greatest propriety be said 

that Jehovah is his God; for as Messiah, he is to be consid- 
ered as incarnate, and ol* course subordinate in respect to his 
human nature, fa it a matter of wonder, that the same per- 
son can, at one moment, be said to have everlasting domin- 
ion, of whom it is -aid, at the next, that .Jehovah is hit Gd 

I: is a wander of the same nature as that which perplexed 

the Jews, When Christ asked them how David could call the 

Messiah Lord, while at the game time he was his son. I; 

a wonder which no ground but that of Trinitarians can ever 



in.] 103 

well explain ; I mean the ground, thai the divine and hwmtm 

ires co-existe 1 in Chr eqnently that in the 

tnce, he could with propriety speak of himself Of 

lnnnan oi- divine. The Bacred writers appear not to take the 

iins defi the two natures, in anything 

which they say of either. They everywhere -peak of Christ, 

it appears to me), m either human or divine or as both, 

tiding to the exigency of the pa- They do not seem 

apprehend any danger of mistake, in regard to the subject ; 

no more than we do when we say thai Abraham ia ieady or 

that Abraham is oHve* We never think it necessary to add 

the words tu to Itis body in the one ease, or as to his soul in 

the other. 

This very negligence, (if I may be allowed the expression, 
saving everything that would imply improper want of care), 
presents a powerful argument to me, I must confess, to prove 
that the -acred writers regarded the human and divine na- 
tures as so intimately connected in Christ, that it was un- 
necessary and inexpedient to attempt a distinctive separation 
of them, on every occasion which brought to view the person 
or actions of Christ.* 

As to the objection that the king is spoken of as one who 
lias " fellows," and therefore as one who is not divine, I 
would merely remark, that Christ is introduced here as the 
incarnate Messiah. To the office of king, God " consecrated 
him with the oil of gladness," i. e. placed him in a royal sta- 
tion more exalted than that of other kings ; and that there is 
given to him the "oil of gladness above his fellows," imports 
that his rank is above that of others who also hold a regal 
otlice. 

* I am aware of the translation, byGesenius and others, of die clause 
in question: " Thy Gods-throne i-- forever and ever." But, (1) This 
cowedes the principal thing which it is designed to deny, namely, that 
the throne of the king here is like to. or the same as, the throne of God ; 
lor the meaning must be this. (2j This rendering admits the sullix 
pronoun ^— to belong to the first oi" two nouns in the construct slate; 
which is against the ordinary laws of the Hebrew Language, llosen- 
mueller therefore rightly translates : Thy throne, God, etc. 



IOC iiMiMnxv of SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III. 

As i" the allegation, thai the 45th Psalm does not belong 
to the Mestioh) but to David, or Solomon; how can this be 
proved? I know it i- easy to assert) thai this Psalm ie a 
mere epithalamium or nuptial ode, on the marriage of one of 
the Jewish kings (probably Solomon) with a foreign prino 
either of Persia or of Egypt Bui I know not bow to reconcile 
such declarations as this I '.-aim contains, with the views of 
the Hebrews in regard to intrenching upon the prorogate 
of the Godhead. At all events, the writer of the epistle to 
the Hebrews has expressly affirmed, that the passage in ques- 
tion was uttered .too.' ro* vtoPj L e. in respect to the Son. 

Here then, if our view be correct, is one instance more in 
which Christ is called (>"<L with such adjuncts as render it 
probable thai supreme divinity is designed to be predicated 
of 111 111. 

I should rank the texts, which I have already produced, as 
leading one- to establish the divine nature of Christ. But 
there are others which should not be neglected. Will you 
permit me briefly to advert to some of them, inasmuch as they 
ought not to be omitted in an impartial examination of scrip- 
tural evidence with respect to the present topic. 

1 John 5: 20. Ku) oitiauti' on o viaQTav &eov 17*01, yau 8t- 
ticoy.tr ij(jii9 tinuoiay, iru yucocjy.coutr zoi uhftivor ' HCU tautv 
ti 7e> aXtf&ipqi, 99 to) vU[) uvtov Ji t nov \nir>T(o. Ovrog tcm 
o akq&woe O'eog y.iu /, £bwj cuomo?. kk And we know that the 

Son of ( lod is come, and hath given D8 an understanding, that 
pre may know him that is true ; and we are in him that is 
true, in his Sou Jesus Christ. This is the true God and 

eternal life." 

There are two reasons here, why 6 aXq&wog too?, the true 
(>'<><!. may ho referred to Christ. 1. The grammatical con- 
struction favours it. Christ is the immediate antecedent. I 
grant that pronouns sometimes relate to a more remote ante- 
Oedenl ; but eases of this nature stand on the ground of ne- 
cessity, or mere poetic usage, and are not of common gram- 
matical U8age. What doubt can there be, that John could with- 
out BGhiple call the Log <- the trio aJjj&lVO$ Qs6$, when 



LETT. III.] rSSTIMOHT Of SCRIPTURI . 107 

he had -1 tint he i$ Gody and hu < nil 

(hi tn is ! 

londly, my principal reason for referring the phrase 
/ (o <: to Christ, is ilif other adjunct 

which stands with it : This is the true Qod — and the 1.11.1:- 
n\i. i i! i . How familiar i> this language with John, as ap- 
plied to Christ! "In him (i.e. Christ) was life, this life 
Jit of men — giving i hi. to the world — the bread of 
i.ir k — my wo! spirit and life — I am the way, the troth, 

and the life — the Logos of life. This life (Christ) v 

manifested and we have Been if, and do testily to yon, and 
dfedare, the ETERNAL LIFE, which was with the Father, and 

Was manifested to us." 1 John 1: 1, 2. Now as I cannot find 
any instance in John's writings, in which the appellation of 
lift; and ttemal life is bestowed upon the Father, to de- 
late him as the author of spiritual and eternal life ; and as 
this occurs so frequently in John's writings as applied to 
Christ ; the laws of exegesis compel me here to accord, in 
my exposition, with the common laws of grammar, and to 
construe both e dXtj'd'irog Qeog and /; £omj aic&viog, (or as 
some manuscripts more consonant with Greek idiom read: // 
Zjxwj i t aio&nog), both of Christ. If then he is the (rue God, 
must he not be really divine f If the (rue God be not divine, 
who is ? 

John 20: 28. IrfnexQi&t} Ompag y.ut elnev avrcp' tfvQtog 
fiov xcu o 0e6g uov. u And Thomas answered and said unto 
him : My Lord, and my God !" 

I have, three reasons for adducing this text. (1) There is 
no satisfactory proof, that it is an exclamation of surprise or 
astonishment. No phrase of this kind, by which the Jews 
were accustomed to express surprise or astonishment, lias yet 
been produced; and there is no evidence that such a phrase, 
with the sense alleged, belongs to their language. (2) The 
evangelist tells as, that Thomas addressed himself to Jesus, 
i. e. spoke to him, tlitzv avnp ; he did not merely exclaim. 
(3) The commendation, which the Saviour immediately be- 
stows upon Thomas, serves chiefly to defend the meaning 



n OfONI "i SCRIPTURE, [lkti. hi. 

that T attach toll* Chris! eommeads bin far having 

n and believed. The evidence that he believed, oil- 

tained in the expression under examination : for before utter- 

ing this expression, he is represented as doubting. On the 

^Opposition then, that the expression \v:i> a mere exclamation, 
jrhal evidence was it to the mind of JeSOS, or could it he to 

the mindfi of others, that he admitted the claims of the Sa- 
viour of men, to the character which was connected with this 

office? Whal more proof of real belief can he found in such 

an exclamation^ (if it he truly one), than we can find that men 
are Christians, when they repeat, as is very common on occa- 
sions of 8Urprise or delight, the name of Christ by way of ex- 
clamation ? But if we admit, that the words of Thomas were 
the proper evidence and expression of that belief for which 

the Saviour commended him, (and I do not see how we can 
fairly avoid this) ; then we must admit that lie will commend 

us, for believing that he is both Lord mid God, Kvqiqs mu 

6*0f. Schlichting, indeed, gets l'id of this by a notahle I 
pedient. lie avers that Lord is to he referred to Christ, and 
God to the Father ; which latter, as he thinks, Thomas spoke 
after some interval of time had elapsed ! 

I pass over several passages, where our common text ap- 
plies the name of God to Christ; e.g. Acts 20: 28, and 1 Tim. 
3: 1G. In regard to this latter text however, it appears to me 
a plain case, that the authorities, which Griesbacb himself has 
adduced, would fairly had to a decision different from his own, 
respecting the genuineness of the reading €kog. I will not 

attempt to weigh them here, B8 I feel no desire to press into 

my sendee witnesses of a character at all dubious. I admit 

the merit of Qfiesbach, in his critical edition of the New Tes- 
tament. J believe he was a man, who would not willingly or 

consciously misrepresent either facts or arguments, either for 

or agaiflSl any reading, lint the work which he undertook 
WBS too great to he accompli.-hed hy one person, or even by 
one whole generation of critics. \)v. Lawrence, in his Ks>ay 

upon the Classification of Manuscripts hy Griesbacb, has ren- 
dered it more than prol able, that Griesbach's account of facts 



i. in.] a i DtONl 01 SCRIPTURE. 109 

(>{ infrequently very emmet o< through design bat 

a human infirmity), and thai the principles by which he 

the value of Manuscripts, and of course the ,L r <'mi- 

iaenesa of particular readings, are some of them fundamentally 

l.ut Grieshacfa is not the only recent editor of a 

critical New Testatni at, to which critics attach itribortanoe* 

tthai, whom Middleton calls the heel Greek Bcholar that 
tiled a Greek Testament, published at Riga (between 
A. 1). 17^-' — L788) a critical Testament of 1 8 volumes, which 
approached much nearer our common Text us Ebeceptttfl than 
the edition of Griesbach ; with whom, indeed, he is often at 
variance* Eichhorn, (after giving a high character of this 
edition of Matthai, and remarking that in his maxims, re- 
specting the formation of the N. Test, text, this editor differs 
very much from Griesbach and some others), says, that "for 
a long time he had followed the middle path between the two 
parties." (Bibliothek, Band ii. St. 2. s. 311). On this sub- 
ject his judgment in general was both enlightened and sound. 

The whole system of classifying manuscripts, whieh lies at 
the very foundation of all Griesbach's decisions in regard 
to the text, is rejected by Matthai as worthless ; and Dr. Law- 
rence has, in the Essay above mentioned, made an attack upon 
the same classification, which renders very questionable the 
principles of it, or at least the application of those principles 
as made by Griesbach. 

Professor Knapp of Halle also published a Greek Testa- 
ment, the text of which is independent of Griesbach's, although 
it approximates to it. This edition has been much esteemed 
for its punctuation, order of words, accentuation, and spiritua- 
tion ; and it still has a large circulation ; although at present 
it is giving place to that of Hahn. 

The critical editions of Lachmann and of Tischendorf have 
also a large run, both of which are in a good measure inde- 
pendent of Griesbach. 

I acknowledge this is digression. But it may be useful to 
those, who are in the habit of attributing so much weight to 

10 



110 BTIMOH1 OF SCUPTUBE. [LKTT. III. 

Griesbach'fl decisions, to know that they arc far from being 
incontroverted, by many of the beet critic- Among hit own 
ooantrymen. I know of no commentator of note, who I 
made Griesbach'a text his basis, except Panlus; and be baa 
camined all his decisions* 

To return, however, to our subject : we do not want, and 
feel no disposition to use, cither of the text- referred to above 
as proof texts in the question before us.* 

There IS another class of texts, which I have not hitherto 
mentioned, because the certainty of their meaning is com- 
monly thought to be less capable of demonstration, than that 
of others which I have produced. I refer to such texts as 
Eph. 5: 5. /■> rj QoGiXsiq roe K^totoi xcu @£o£, -in the 
kingdom of Christ and God." Titus 2: 18. Ilnnaftt/nitu'oi 

fff naxiajiay iXfttikt y.iu tTTiq untur tffi dofyg tov inyuh)V 
&eoi y.iu aaniJQog t][ju5f ItjGoi XntaTov. " Looking for the 
Messed hope and glorious appearance of our great God and 
Saviour, Jesus Christ*' 1 2 Tim. 4: 1. /Iiauarnvnomu m£- 

JilOf roe foot?, xiu 'iljOOV Xniamv roe ub'/./.orrn^ xnivbir fftJr- 

7(U y.iu PSXQOVg, y.uru tip trru) uvuur uvrnv y.iu ttp fJunt/.tiay 
avrov' "I adjure you before God, even Jesus Christ, who 
will judge the quick and the dead at his appearance and king- 
dom." 2 Pet 1:1 roe (hnv ///for y.a) GeOTtJQOQ ///Tor 

Aoorroe • " of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ/' 

The mode here proposed of translating these texts, is cer- 
tainly in conformity with the Greek idiom. Middleton (on the 
Article) thinks it absolutely essential to it. For although 
proper names and abstract nouns, in such a connection as 
0$6$ and X(H6f6g here, may take the article before the first 

noun and omit it before the second, and yet designate differ* 

rut things and persons | yet it' words, which are attrilmti< 
omit the article in Mich a ca-e, they exhibit evidence that 
they are to be connected with a preceding noun, and are the 
predicates of it, and not significant of something separate. 

* As to i Tim. 3: 16, I fr. EL o lereoo seems to hare settled tin • 
diplomatically in favourofitfl genuineness, in an Essay of his, which 

lished in the Biblical Repository, VoL II- p. l 



P. III.] i i> i [MOOT Of B< UF1 i &B< 1 11 

.:. in the first case; Kph. (i The kingdom of Christ 

• this rule would mean " w Ohrisl who 

In the second instance, Tit 2: 18, the ibeaning 

WOOld 1m-, "nl'ilir L r ri ;it God who is our Saviour," etc. 

.Mr. Wordsworth, a few yean since, instituted a most la- 
igationoftbe Greek fathei le whether the 

idiom which n the article here was admitted into their 

wril and whether they ever understood more than o 

I by such expressions. The result I 
will give in his own words, (p. 132). kk I have observed 
more, I am persuaded, than a thousand instances of the form i 
\nhirn*: -/.la Qeog (Eph. 5: 5) ; some hundreds of instances 
ot o fttyag (ttu*: xou gopitjq (Tit 2: 13) ; and not fewer than 
several thousands of the form o Oto^/.ia aoni t o (2 Pet 1: 1) ; 
while in no single case have I seen, where the sense could be 
. any one of them used but only of one person." 

After all, if there were no other evidence of the divinity 
of Christ in the New Testament, than what depended solely 
on these texts, one might perhaps hesitate concerning the sub- 
ject. But when I consider that the method of translating, 
here proposed, is conformable to the Greek idiom, and must 

adopted in various other passages, (e. g. Rom. 15: G. Eph. 

_<>. James 1: 27). and if adopted in these, will give them 
conformable to that of other parts of the sacred vol- 
ume, I must confess the evidence which these passages afford, 
if not decisive, at least serves to confirm the testimony of 
those other texts. Specially is this the case, in regard to the 
text in Titus ; for where is the appearing of God the Father 
ever spoken of by the New Testament writers? It is Christ 
wh< appeared to execute vengeance upon the Jewish 

nation, and who will again appear at the general judgment. 
The appearance of the great God and Saviour seems to be 
fairly applied to Christ. 

Tims much for the texts, which bestow upon Christ the 
appellation of God, with adjuncts that show in what sense the 
word God must be understood, according to the common rules 
of interpreting language- I come now, 



1 12 i !> I [MONT OJ SCRIP! QBE. [LETT. III. 

II. To examine another class of texts, which attribute to 
Christ equality with God, or that power, and dignify and 
honoTy which belong appropriately to God* 

Phil. 2: S — 8« Tovio yaQ ipQOvetad'Oi h iuIv o um iv 

\nllT<i' llfiOV* Od tf ! U) 'J'I I, , ' /, '"° r I -T^'/j/f.)!', 01/ :ini' 

tjYTjGUTO TO lirai hit'. Defy ttXk ii'.rrni ixi'vCOOS, unntj / t i fatf- 

Xov Xdp&ft iv oiioiouu'.ri ur&Qwncov yevoptyov, xou a'/J^un 
tvn; 9i Big ng ap&Qeonog, tjaneivfooe* iavtovj yevofuvog vmpuh 
W " : '/.'Ji O^atdtoVf Oe.n'.roi J* OJaVQOV. " Let the same mind 
be in you which was in Christ Jesus ; who, being in the con- 
dition of God, did not regard his equality with God as an ob- 
ject of solicitous desire, but taking the condition of a servant, 
being made' after the similitude of men, and being found in 
fashion as B man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient 
unto death, even the death of the cross."' 

Such is the rendering, which, after much examination, I 
am persuaded the Greek of this passage not only admits but 
demands. I will state my reasons for dissenting from the 
common method, in which either Trinitarians or Unitarians 
have translated it. 

Our common version runs thus: "Who being in the form 
of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but 
bumbled himself, etc." This version seems to render nuga- 
tory, or at least irrelevant, a part of the apostle's reasoning 
in the passage. He is enforcing the principle of Christian 
humility on the Philippians. In order to urge this in the 
most effectual manner, he proposes to them the example of 
Christ : k * Lei the same mind be in you which was in Christ." 
What was this? It was manifested by the fact, that though 

lentially divine (ip (*oq<P% foov), he did not eagerly retain 
bis divine condition, but assumed the station or condition of a 
-i irani (uooifnf JoiJJLov). Here the relevancy of his reason- 
ing is sufficiently plain. But how was it any proof or exam- 
ple o\' humility, that M he did not think it robbery to be equal 
with God?" 

Besides, the Greek will not fairly bear this construction. 
iqmafllQS) translated rubbery* does not beie signify tui act of 



it. ill.] i B8T1M0N1 OF B< Kirn 113 

,. but res rapta, or rather re$ avide diripienda ei vindt* 
mething which Is eagerly to be seized and appro- 
priated. Moreover aqnaypfey which our translators have 
placed the verb yytjaatO) dot's not by the rules of syn- 

tax belong there. The Greek syntax would place the words 
thus, as to their sense : ovx fff^aato to that n^c fredi anxuy- 

i : literally, "he regarded not, or he deemed not, the being 

id to Gk)d as aQTiayfioV) i. e. aa a thing to bo greedily 

ighl or appropriated. 

For these reasons, I cannot believe that our common ver- 
sion gives the true sense of the passage. And for similar 
reasons, I feel compelled to reject the version so common 
among some Unitarians : " He did not think of the robbery 
of being equal with God." The objections to it are, that it 
translates unxe.yuor here as designating the action of robbery ; 
and that ot/x tffTJGaro to elvcu laa Otco uTzuyuov can never 
be proved to mean : He thought not of the robbery of being 
equcUvrith God. The verb qyTJaaro is not susceptible of suck 
a meaning as thought of i. e. did not aspire to, imagine, 
form expectations of, etc. In its primary sense it signifies 
to lead, to be preeminent, etc. ; in its secondary sense, to es- 
teem, judge, regard, repute, etc. To render ova qpftjaro 
aim ay nor, lie did not think of the robbery, would therefore be 
violating the obvious principles of the Greek language. To 
justify in any measure such a version, the passage must run 
thus, ou TON dnnaynhr fjyrJGato TOT tlvcu iaa 0£o5.* 
And as no ancient manuscript or version has given a hint of 
such a form of the text, it seems to be placed beyond fair de- 
bate, that the translation now in question cannot be admitted. 

Both our translators and Unitarians appear, generally, to 
have mistaken the import of the word fAoocf t] in this passage. 
On the one hand, pOQCpTj does not seem to me at all parallel 
with the brightness (drravy anna) and express image (yaoax- 
r /;<>), which are applied to the Son in Heb. 1: 3. These 

* Even then ovk ffytfoaro could not be rendered thought not of. The 
word does not permit tins sense. 

10* 



Ill rUTIKOVT of s< men i;r. [lktt. in. 

words designate the glory of the incarnate Messiah, who had 
appeared u ki these la&( days, and spoken to men. They ex- 
press the same view of Christ which John gives (1: li), wh<-n 
l\<- lays: M We beheld his [Christ's] dory, verily the glory 
of the Only begotten of the Father;" and this glory was >een 
after the ' Word became flesh and dwelt among us.' Com- 
parison then of iionij/j (-)mw with these passages, will not as- 
certain its meaning ; for to Christ belonged the uoocfi) Otov, 

yrt he humbled himself and took upon him the form of a 
Servant Indeed, in occupying the condition of a servant, (if 
I may so express the Greek SXfVoXTI otuvroy), consisted his 
humiliation. 

A fair examination of uoncf /,', either generally or in special 
relation to the passage before us, will end, as I must believe, 
in the conviction, that the word is not unfrequently synony- 
mous with p&rig (nature) and ovaia (being). The proofs 
which Schleusner has offered of this are sufficient. (Lex. 
in IOC imnifi' t ). But the proof of what it means in the pas- 
sage before us, is too plain to be easily mistaken. If you 
say , [inncf l t (:)tnv means only a similitude or resemblance of 
God in moral qualities, as we speak of Christians resembling 
God, then I ask, whether his humiliation consisted in de- 
pressing, or subjecting to a lower station, the moral qualities 
which Christ possessed. 

Does ftOQyq Qqov mean then a resemblance to God in re- 
Speefl to office, even as magistrates are sometimes called gods? 
Kot SO j for on the supposition that Christ was only a finite 
being, what office did he lay aside in order to become incar- 
nate ? If Christ be Only a created being, who were his sub- 
ject-, and what was his dominion, before his mediatorial king- 
dom commenced by the event of his incarnation? 

But this IS not all. It' [tnntj i] mean only similitude, then 
what is the sense of the next clause, where Christ is said to 
ha\e taken upon him the fionql^r dovkov? That he 1- 

meivlv a reiemUance to a Bervant, i. e. to one who obeys, 

or is in a humble station; or that he did actually take the 
condition of one who was in a humble and depressed state, 



l.i it. in.] - nvoin of l Li 

an<i v death of the i The lat- 

musf be admitted, qdIqu ire hearken to the doctrine of 

the Docet®, who taught, thai Christ iraa ■ man in ofpemr* 

only, and not in reality. It ,""(,"/ ', towAoti, then, means 
the Condition or state of one who is hnmhle<l oi depressed, 

ami Bubjoctedto the command of others* dees no! ,""C"/'i & & $ 

mean the condition or Mate of one who is truly divine? 

Alter all, it should he sacredly remembered, that on such 

a subject as this, human Language, (made up of terms invent- 
ed to express the ideas of finite and mutable beinga about 
Unite and mutable objects), is of course incompetent fully to 
jrnate tin* mode of union between the divine and human 
natun s. I must regard the language here, and in all other 
- which respect this awe-inspiring subject, as only an 
ion toward describing what exists in the Divinity, 
or is done by him. He who was in the condition of God, 
and equal with God, i. e. divine, r/.trcoat tuvror ■ which we 
tranalab \anivit seipsum, or made himself of no reputa- 

tion. Yet how incompetent musi these translations be ! So 
far as Christ is the immutable God, he cannot change, i. e. 
he cannot divest himself of his essential perfections. #He 
cannot cease to be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, etc. 
But he may veil the brightness of bis glories for a time, by 
assuming to himself a union with the human nature, and 
making this the organ through which he displays bis per- 
fections, during the time of the incarnation. Does the natu- 
ral sun cease to shine — are his beams extinguished, when an 
intervening cloud obscures for a while his lustre ? Or is the 
sun in any measure changed? 

In reply to a multitude of questions, with whicli you and 
others press Trinitarians on this subject, we may ask: Be- 
causc God is omnipotent, does it follow that the whole of 
that omnipotence must be every moment exerted? If not, 
(and who will refuse assent to this?) then why may he not 
have veiled his glories for a time in the incarnate Saviour, 
and still retain all his essential perfections unchanged ? Is 



HI rRSTIMONTOV SCBIPTOT [LETT. III. 

it too much to Bay, thai he mag have done bo ? J believe tlie 
text in question decider that be did so. 

I approach such a BUbject, however, with solemn awe ; and 
never do I feel inv own weakness and ignorance more in- 
tensely, than while endeavouring to think Upon it. Tlie 
Familiar, I had almost said irreverential manner, in whieh 

-oino speak and write respecting this mystery, is calculaledf 

I freely acknowledge, to excite painful emotions. On the 
one hand, it would seem, if we are to credit one mode of rep- 
utation, that the greatest portion of Christ's humiliation 
Consisted in his having renounced and absolutely laid aside 
his divinity, during the time of the incarnation ; and that as 
God, in this diminished condition, (if I may so speak), he 
did actually expire upon tin' cross. All the powers of lan- 
guage are exhausted, in order to show how great must be the 
sufferings and condescension of Christ, in undergoing such a 
degradation as this. On the other hand, some who revolt 
from these mistaken representations, verge to the other ex- 
treme. Lest they should degrade the divine nature of Christ, 
they are BO careful to separate the human nature from it, that 
one^s compelled to suppose, that the man Jesus had simply 
a higher degree of inspiration and communion with God than 
other prophets. The New Testament does not seem to me 
to justify either of these extremes. 

A thousand questions may be raised here; a thousand dif- 
ficulties suggested, which no sober man will undertake to an- 

i r. The history of past Bges exhibits an appalling picture 
of disputes about the person of Christ; all springing from 
the denial offacU revealed in the New Testament, or from 
the unhallowed curiosity of men who desired to know what 

God has not revealed. The very last age witnessed a dis- 
pute in Germany between the theologians of Giessen and 

Tubingen, whether the humiliation (x&OXH?) of Christ con- 
sisted ** in abstinence from both the direct and reilex use of 

divide majesty ;" or in the "occultation of divine majesty;" 
a dispute which agitated the Lutheran Church to the very- 
ire. 



r. in.] iratomr 01 bcripi qi i 1 7 

humble inquirer after truth, who once kfl brought 
see the boundaries of human knowledge, will slu-ink 

JUCh a nature and pour forth hit earned 
Supplications to God, that the simple verities which the 

riptures reveal may be believed on the authority i>\' God ; 

while the I in which the fact- revealed for our credence 

ft with him M whose ways are unsearchable and 
omenta are pas! finding out." 

I have need the freedom of letter-writing, in this die 
i ; I can hardly call it digression, as it i> so nearly con- 
led with the explanation of the text which I am examin- 
ing. Will you now permit me to repeat, that the version 
which would correspond best with the real meaning of the 
passage in question, must express the following ideas : " Who 
being of divine nature or condition, did not eagerly seek to 
retain his equality with God, but took on himself a humble 
condition, etc." In this way, and in this only, does the pas- 
sage appear to be consistent with the apostle's argument and 
design, at least appropriate to them ; and in this way only, 
can the Greek be fairly and grammatically rendered. 

With the passage that has now been considered, several 
otli> mi to me to agree, in respect to general import. 

K. g. John 5: 19, " Whatsoever things he [the Father] doeth, 
the same doeth the Son likewise;" i. e. he has the same 
power as the Father. And when it is said in the context : 
" The Son doeth nothing by (or of dno, ay) himself, ex- 
cept he see the Father do it ;" 1 understand the meaning to 
be, that the Jews had no reason to believe that Christ had 
any disposition to break the divine commandments, (of which 
they had so frequently accused him), because he acted in en- 
tire concert with the divine purposes and commands, and 
had no separate interests of his own. Any other interpre- 
tation than this, makes the passage inept, and wholly irrele- 
vant to the case in hand. 

Several passages there are, of the like nature with the one 
just considered, which assert a dependence of the Son upon 
the Father, but all of w r hich relate to his mediatorial state, 



118 ntsTDfom of scriftuh [lett. hi. 

when he had assumed a human nature. Such are the paa- 
- w hich declare that Chris! was taught, shown, instructed? 
and >ent or commissioned, by the Father; e. L r . John 5: 20, 
86, 27, SO, 3& John 0: 88. In John 6: ^ ifl a simng I 
D of this nature : u As the living Father hath sent D 

and / //Vr by the Father; bo he that eateth me, even lie >hali 
live by me." Now here Christ represents himself as licin<j 

by tin Father, that is, through his power or influence, in like 
manner a.- his disciples are spiritually nourished by him. But 
all this evidently belongs to his mediatorial person and na- 
ture; and of this it is plainly true. The passages which 
teach US that Christ was JftCt d&d Of instructed by the Father, 
in all the revelations which he made, are somewhat frequent, 
dally in the works of John ; e. g. Key. 1:1. John 12: 49. 
8: 3& 1 1: 1<>, 2 1. 15: LO, 15. lint, intermingled withthese, 
(and, on the ground of Christ's two-fold nature, easily inter- 
preted), are others of a very different tenor. For example; 
he says (John 10: 7 sq.)j lnat he will send the Paraclete, i. e. 
the Spirit of truth, to teach and comfort his disciples ; and 
then he adds : " lie [the Spirit] shall glorify me ; for he 
shall receive oimine, and shall show it unto you." Nor is 
this all. He goes on to say : '' All things that the Father 
hath are mine; therefore said I, he shall take of mine, and 
show it unto you." Very different is the tenor of the mean- 
ing here, from that of the words of Paul, when he tells the 

Corinthians, that "all things are theirs. " The apostle 
means, that all the privileges and blessings of the gospel with 

all its teachers, and all its hopes and promises, are theirs, and 
that they and all these belong to one common Lord, i. e. 
Christ ; also that Christ himself, as the mediator of the new 
dispensation, and according to the economy of grace, belongs 
to God, or is subordinate to him, 1 Cor. o: 21 — 23. The 
apostle Bays all this, to quell party spirit and the assumption 

of superiority among the Corinthians. lint when Chi 
[HPmioci to his disciples, first, that he will send the Paraek 

and then ggyg that the Holy Spirit will ylorifu him : and 
finally a Id.-, thai "all which the Father hath i> hfe-i" can 



:n.l rWRKONI <»i %( ktitti 1 19 

asonably suppose thai :my pious man, nay thai any 

'tt'il being who is filled with the fear of (i<>d, would make 
Buch language as this? To speak of himself as gUm- 

•' by the Spirit, and as '/// thing* in such a sense 

that the Spirit is said to take and to receive of the things 
which are bis, and to show them to the disciples — is this lan- 
>ming in a mere human being, yea, decorous in any 
■Harare for any created being whatever? Th<' Holy Spirit 
then is to take of what belongs to him who is a created and 

.•ndrnt being, in order to furnish himself for the work of 
guiding and comforting the disciples ! It is improbable — 
nay, it is morally impossible, for any created being filled with 
reverential awe of God, and with deep humility, to express 
himself in such manner while in ihe use of his sober senses. 

•h language, in his mouth, would amount to little or nothing 
short of blasphemy ; if blasphemy may mean the saying of 
that which detracts from God, and elevates the creature to 
the rank of a divine being. I venture to say, that no theory 
of doctrine which denies the Godhead of Christ, can fairly 
make out an exegesis of this language, which is consistent 
with fact, with piety, and with reason. 

Again, in that last memorable prayer of Jesus, recorded in 
John xvii., when speaking of his disciples, he says to the 
Father: "All mine are thine, and thine are mine ; and I am 
glorified in them," v. 10. Here is even additional reason for 
applying the remarks just made. Such claims forsooth as 
these, on the part of a mere man, or a mere creature ! How 
can I admit this, and admit that the being who uttered it was 
full of reverence and humility, or even that he was in a state 
of sanity ? I confess myself utterly at a loss to reconcile this 
With any Unitarian theory, of which I have any knowledge. 
Of the same nature is a text already cited above: " My 
Father worketh hitherto, and I work/' John 5: 17. In other 
words, (as Jesus was accused of violating the Sabbath) : ■ My 
Father suspends not his operations on this holy day ; and I 
have a right to continue mine on the same ground.' If this 
be admitted, then is the justification of Jesus complete. But 
what human or merely created being could place his justifi- 



ISO rssTiMOinr of scripture. it. hi. 

cation on Boch ground m this ? The Jews immediately acca» i 
him of blasphemy. They were in the right, ifhe was nothing 
more than a mere man. lim bow does be vindicate himself? 
By telling them that they had wholly mistaken the meaning 

hi- expressions? Not at all. 1 1 « - merely tells them that he 
follows the example of the Father, and that he is commission- 
ed by him to do the greatest of miracles, to raise the dead, 

and to judge the world; and all this, in order that "all Often 
should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father." 

He not only asserts, thru, his right to supersede the law of 
the Sabbath, but his right to .-hare in the same honours 
which are to he paid to the Father. 

J must [confess, that passages like these make a deeper 
impression on my mind, than many a passage which seems 
directly to assert that Christ is God. For such passages as 
those before us show that the truth in question was in- 
wrought into the mind of Jesus, and that he was in readiness 
to develop it, directly or indirectly, on every proper occasion. 

John 5: 21 — 23. 4 - For as the Father raiseth the dead and 
restoreth them to life, so also the Son restoreth to life whom 
he pleases. For the Father jndgeth no man, but hath com- 
mitted all judgment to the Son, that all men might honour 
. 000H Of they honour the Father?' 

Is there not here an equality of power and honour, ascrib- 
ed to the Father and Son? The Son is introduced as " head 
over all things ;" but could he be such a head, could u all 
judgment be Committed to him,'' it* at the same time he was 
nut divine, and consequently omniscient ? It is perfectly 
plain, that in so far as the u committing of judgment to the 
Son" is concerned, it must be to the mediatorial person ; to 
one who in reaped to office 18 subordinate to God. I>ut in 
so far as qualiii<-<iti'>its requisite to perform the duties which 
that commitment requires, are concerned, the Saviour is di- 
vine ; and the honour to be claimed by him, is the >ame with 
that which the Divinity himself claims. It matters not 

whether you interpret this afo& endered to the 

; Aw//'/;/' to be paid to him. Multitudes of prophets, 



it. in.] Kir n 1-1 

as commissioned ; , have borne his n 3 of mercy 

and it to his all, 

did he granl th prn i 1< _T' - of bring honoured a< himself? 
Or to wha: g shall the glory of the hies* d ( 

be rendered, without infringing upon the fundamental princi- 
pies of both irish and the Christian religion? 

V i will expert me, I . to adduce John 1": SOj "I 

and mv Father ai It is a clear thai th< 

here seem to have understood Christ as claiming equality 

wit! or rather claiming to be God : m e v. 83* But I 

am not satisfied, that the manner in which they often expound- 
ed his word-, is a sure guide for our interpretation of them 
at the present time. The malignant disposition which they 
frequently displayed, may well lead us to suspect, that they 
would, if possible, put such a construction on his words as 
would subject him to the imputation of blasphemy, or of re- 
bellion against the Roman government. I would expound 
the words of Christ, therefore, independently of any construc- 
tion which his embittered enemies put upon them. And in 
the present case, it seems to me, that the meaning of " I and 
my Father are one," is simply : ' I and my Father are united 
or one in counsel, design, and operation.' 

So in John 17: 20, 21, Christ prays that "all who shall 
believe on him may be one. As thou Father," continues he, 
"art in me, and I in thee, so they also tna-y be one in us;" 
i. e. that the disciples may have the " same mind which was 
in Christ Jesus," may copy after his example, and may be 
united in the temper of their souls to him, as he is to God, 
and thus may be one with the Father and with him. 

So also, in Gal. 3: 28, Christians of different ranks and 
nations are said to be one in Christ ; and 1 Cor. 3: 8, he that 
planteth and he that watereth are one, i. e. they have the 
same affections and designs, they are united to accomplish 
the same object. In the same manner Cicero says : Unus 
fiat e pluribus, i. e. many constitute one, when persons are 
united in temper and pursuits ; De Offic. I. 17. 

11 



122 iTOfomr 03 ptubs. [lett. in. 

Prom the consideration of those texts, which ascribe to 
Ohrist, in a general sense, equality with God or divine power 
and honours, lei us now turn, 

III. To the examination of those, which assert or imply, 
that particular divine attributes, or works, tdong to him. 
1. Omniscience is ascribed to Christ 

Matt 11:27. " All things are delivered to me of my 
Father; and no man knowcth the Son but the Father; 
neither kaoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he 
to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." 

If, in this passage, the same omniscience be not ascribed to 
the Son as to the Father, I am unable to make out satisfac- 
torily what the meaning of it is. In the latter elause of the 
verse men are declared to be entirely dependent on the Son 
for that knowledge of the Father which is revealed, i. e. he 
only is capable of making this revelation. " No man hath 
seen God at any time; the only begotten whodwelleth in the 
bosom of the Father he hath revealed him? John 1: 18. At 
the same time I concede it to be jiossible, that the knowledge 
here spoken of may be merely that which is intended to be 
revealed in the gospel. 

John G: 46. Ovy on rov rruTboa ti^ tcoow/.tv, gj ///} 6 cov 
mxga rov Otoi - mrrog Se&qaxe rov nation. " Because that 
no man hath seen the Father, save he who is of God ; he 
hath seen the Father." The word tuinc/.t here does not 
mean to He with bodily eyes, but icith the mental eye, i. e. to 
know. What but omniscience could be adequate to the 
knowledge, which is here predicated of Christ ? And is it 
a satisfactory explanation of the text, to say, that the know- 
ledge here meant, is simply that which is conveyed in the 
instructions of the gospel? 

In the same manner, the knowledge of the most intimate 
rets of the human heart is ascribed to Christ. John 2: 
2 1, 25, M But Jesus did not commit himself unto them I 
Qanse he knew all men, and needed not that any should testi- 
fy of man ; for he knew what was in man." John 6: G4, 



- riMONY ( i in i:r. 

"Bui there are aomc of job thai beli- i- For Je 

knew from the beginning who they were thai believed nut, 
ami who should betray him." 

:. '-And liny prayed, and said: Thou, Lord, 

which knowest the b< all men, show whether of tin 

i thou hast chosen." Thai h¥f& (xi'mm*) here means 
.iv plain tVom vs. 21, 22 (oomp. v. I 
les, this is the common appellation of 
the Saviour in the Acta ofth I appeal made 

in tlii- 1 la the choia of an apostle. "Show, Lord," 

the apostles, "which of these two Aou hast chosen, that 
he may take part of tin- ministry and apottlesMp." Is there 
any room to doubt here, that the apostle did appeal to the 
te Lord who had chosen them, beseeching him to desig- 
nate who should till the vacancy occasioned by the death of 
Juda> ! There can be none. 

1 Cor. 1: JL 5, •• For I know nothing by myself; yet am I 
not hereby justified : but he that judgeth me is the Lord. 
Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, 
who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, 
and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts ; and then 
shall every man have praise of God." That Lord (xvniog) 
here means ('/wist, is plain, both from the office of judging 
■Scribed to him, and from his coming to judgment. With- 
out citing numerous other passages, which confessedly rep- 
resent Christ as the final judge of all the human race, permit 
me here to ask : Is it possible for any being who is not om- 
>t, to judge the universe of intelligent creatures? Can 
he for thousands of years, (possibly of ages), be present every- 
where, and know all that is transacted ? Can he penetrate 
the recesses of the human heart? Can he remember the 
whole character and actions of countless myriads so diverse 
in taleii iper, circumstances, and situation, and yet be 

finite, be neither omnipresent nor omniscient? God claims 
it as his distinguishing and peculiar prerogative, that he 
knows the secrets of the human heart, (Jer. 17: 10) ; what 
then must he be, who knows the secrets of all hearts, at all 



124 i i - i [MONT OF SCRIM I I [LETT. III. 

time-, and in nil worlds? If he be not God, the proof that 
the Father ie God, must also be defective; ami we have the 
question again to dispute with the fifanicheang, whether 
Jehovah he nut a limited ami imperfect being. 

Bat, yon will Bay: ' Christ acts a> judge by dihgaiti an* 
thority; why not then by knowledge imparted to him?' lie 
dm - indeed act as judge by delegated authority, because il 
in hi- mediatorial capacity that he acta as judge; but to act 
as judge is one thi be qualified tor such an office is an- 

other. Exaltation as mediator constitutes him judge in that 
capacity : <>nutij>i wiscienee only can qualify him 

for the duties of that station. And can omniscience be im- 
parted? We may as well say omnipotence or self-exie t en ce 
ean he imparted. There is, ami there can be, but em Qodr; 

and a -econd omniscient being (omniscient simply by know- 
ledge imparted), would force us into all the absurdities of po- 
lytheism. 

Rev. 2: 23. u And all the churches shall know that I am he 
which seareheth the ivins and hearts; and I will give unto 
every one of you according to your works." The same per- 
son speaks here, who "was dead and is alive," i. e. Christ, 
(ch. 1: 18). The sense of the passage is too plain to need 
any comment. 

To conclude this head; when I compare such passages 
as those above cited with the description of omniscience, 
how can I doubt that the New Testament writers mean to 
ascribe the knowledge of all thing* to Christ? To say- 
that whatsoever pertain- to God or man is known by any 
being, is to predicate omniscience of that being. Com- 
pare now with this the knowledge which God ascribes to 
himself only, in Jer. 17: lb 1<> : •• The heart is deceitful above 
all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? I 
the LoaO March the heart, I try the reins, even to give 
every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit 
of his doing-." 

2. Divine power is ascribed to Christ. 

Tbil. :J: 21, " Who BhaU change our vile body, that it may 



LETT. III.] 1 Of * Ml 123 

dated like unto his gkrions body, aoeording to thi 
j whereby he is able even to sobdue all things onto 

lmi 

Compare now with this passage, 1 Cor. 15:26 — 26, whore 

tho mm language is applied to God the Father* And if 

inbdne all things to himself*" (vmtd£eu r« nivta im* 

not characteristic of onmipotenoe in PhiL8:2J when 

applied to Christ, why should it be so when applied in 1 Cor. 

xv. to the Father i 

Heb- 1: -'). *Og (av anavyaafia tijg 96%tjg -/au yuuic/.T^n rij$ 
i 7' )g avrov, (//oojr 7t ru navxa ?<p QTjfiart rijfs dw& 

I <a<r<>r), di iaartoi xaduniouor noHjoapepog rdJ* (c:<anTi- 
(ov ^//wi', ixd&iaep iv dtiiu rife [ttrfu/.oKjun^ h ei/v/of^* 
" Who, (being the brightness of his glory and the express 
image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of 
his power), when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down 
on the right hand of the majesty on high." The word (ftncov 
which is translated upholding) means preserving, directing, 
governing. Thus Chrysostom : Cftncov, says he, xvfh'orcov 
biammovza ovyxoiicwr, i. e. governing, preserving things 
perishable. So the corresponding Hebrew word xr:, Isa. 
46: 3. 63: 9. 

In John 10: 16, Christ says, that " he has power to lay- 
down his life, and to resume it again. " In other places the 
resurrection of Jesus is ascribed to God ; Acts 2: 24, 32. 3: 
15. 5: 30. 1 Cor. 6: 14. 15: 15. 

In 2 Pet. 1: 3, divine poiver (&uu dvvcqug) is ascribed to 
Christ ; comp. v. 16. 

Most decisive, however, of divine power belonging to 
Christ, are tho.^e passages above, which ascribe to him the 
creation of the universe. This is the distinguishing charac- 
teristic of Jehovah. Jer. 10: 10 — 16. " But the Lord is the 
true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting King; at 
his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not 
be able to abide his indignation. Thus shall ye say unto 
them : The gods that have not made the heavens and the 
earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under 

11* 



126 3TIMONT OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III. 

these heavens. He bath made the earth by his power, he 
hath established the world by bis wisdom, and hath stretched 
out the heaveitf by his discretion. When he uttereth his 

voice there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he 
causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth ; he 

makctli lightnings with rain, and hringeth forth the wind out 
of his treasures. Every man is brutish in his knowledge 

<\<rv founder is confounded by the graven image; for his 
molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them. 
They are vanity, and the work of errors ; in the time of their 
visitation they shall perishi The portion of Jacob is not like 

them ; for lie is the former of ail things, and Israel is the rod 

of his inheritance: the LORD OF HOSTS is his name." 

Acts 11: 15. " Sirs, why do ye these things? we also are 

men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye 

should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which 
made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all tilings that are 
therein." 

Whatever views other persons may entertain, who read 
such passages and compare them with the creative power 
ascribed to Christ, I cannot but admit, with the apostle, that 
" he who built all things is God." 

3. Eternity is ascribed to Christ. 

That those passages of Scripture, which speak of Christ's 
existence before the creation of the world, do not explicitly 
aeeeri his eternity, I have already suggested. But then, it is 
difficult to conceive that they do not imply eternity. k * For," 
says Doederlcin. (Inst. Theol. i. p. 890,) M to exist before the 
beginning of the world, what can it mean but to exist from 
eternity?'? Passages of this nature are the following; viz. 
John 1: 1, u In the beginning was the Word, and the Word 
was with Gpd, and the Word was God." 1 John 1: '2. •• For 
the Fife was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear wit- 
ness, and show unto you that eternal J. if' which was with the 
Father, and was manifested unto us." John 17: 5, u And 
now. () Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the 
glory which I had with thee before the world was." John 17: 



[ii.] i rntomr oi b< mwube. i 27 

2 1. " Father, I will that they also whom thou bast given me 

ha with me where I am ; that they may behold my :_ r lory, 
which thou hast given me; Ibr tliou lovedsl m< the 

*ion of the world" 

But specially do I apprehend thai Rev* 22: 18 is decisive 

on thi< subject. *£yoj ro A xcu t<) ii, i ft^ot&S wu i fafa- 

rn. ro r&o?. That it is Christ who here speaks, 

m dear ; for, (1) In the preceding verso he says : k - Heboid/ 

i quickly." (2) In the sixteenth verse the same person 

- : • L Jesus have sent mine angel," etc Now the same 
ription that is here applied to Christ, is given of the 

i nity of God in ch. 20: 5, G ; comp. vs. 7 and 3. To know 
still more fully what this form of expression means, we must 
recur to the Old Test., where we find it divested of its 
technical shape. In Isa. 14: 6, Jehovah says: " I am the first, 
and I am the last, and beside me there is no God ;" i. e. 
eternity distinguishes me from all that are falsely called gods. 
So in Isa. 48: 1 2, after declaring that he will not suffer his 
name to be polluted, nor give his glory to another, he adds: 
" I am he [i. e. the true God] ; I am the first, and I also am 
the last." 

Now if the same things be asserted of Christ, (as plainly 
they are in the texts under consideration), how can we avoid 
the conclusion, that the holy apostle meant to assert his eter- 
nal existence ? 

4. Divine honours and worship are ascribed to Christ. 

John o: 23. " That all men might honour the Son even 
as they honour the Father." On this text I have before re- 
marked (p. 95) in another connexion. 

Hebi 1: 0. " Let all the angels of God worship him." 

The word worship, it is said, has two significations, viz. 
obeisance and spiritual homage. This is true ; and the first 
of these meanings often presents itself in the Old Test., and 
(as I am willing to concede) in the Gospels. Many who 
worshipped Christ, while he sojourned among men, that is, 
prostrated themselves before him, probably knew or acknowl- 
edged nothing of his divine nature. But what shall we say 



128 n i:r. [LETT, hi. 

of the - Are thejj rgnoranfl of his true nature ? And 

is not the worship which they who are pure spirits pay, of 
tmtL and not simple obeismc' 

PhiL 2: 10, 11. - Thai at the name rf Jeans every knee 
ulil bow, ot things in heaven, and things in earth, and 
things under the earth ; and that every tongue should con- 
fess that de-us Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the La- 
tin : 

u Things in heaven, earth, and under the earth," is a com- 
mon periphrasis of the fffcbrew and New Testament writers, 
the universe, (to rrur or tic narTo). What can be meant 
by things in heaven, i. e. beings in heaven, bowing the knee 
to Jesos, if spiritual worship be not meant? AVhat other 
worship can heaven render? And if the worship of Christ 
in heaven be spiritual, should not that of others, who ought 
tO fee in temper united with them, be spiritual also? And 
when it is added, that this worship shall be kk to the glory of 
God the Father," I understand the sentiment to be, that Je- 
Btta in his mediatorial character is the proper object of uni- 
versal adoration : but inasmuch as this mediatorship was ap- 
pointed by God the Father, and has a peculiar connexion 
with and relation to him, so the worship paid to Christ as the 
Mediator, should redound to the glory of God the Father as 
well as to his own. 

Rom. 10: 9 — 1 1. "If thou shall confess with thy mouth 
the Lord Je808, and shalt believe in thine heart that God 
hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For 
with the heart man believeth unto righteousness ; and with 
the mouth confession ifi made unto salvation. For the Scrip- 
ture saith : AY: r believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 
For there is no difference between the flew and the Greek ; 
for the BEttte Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 
For w fa r shall call upon the name of the Lord shall 

saved. 1 low then -hall they call on him in whom they 
have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of 
whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear with- 
out a preacher 



. r. HI*] BTIMONY Ol BCBIPTUBE. 120 

The Lord • \ame Utey art to cally ia plainly Rod 

srly the Lord Christ; for he i- the lame in whom ihtjf 

to bdii i. II. ll). And this Lord (Christ) on 

whom thc\ Are 10 Call, and in whom tiny an- to brlirvr, is 

A< /tmi, / ( A"/v/, and therefore able to bestow 

blessings n hich they Deed. 

— l l. M And wL. n 1,.- [i. «'. Christ, » 6, 7], 

v the book, the (bur beasts and tour and twenty elders fell 
e tin- Lamb, having every <•!.<• of them harps, and 
gohl< n vials lull of odours, which are the prayers of the 
its. And they sung a new BOng, Baying: Thou art wor- 
thy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou 
w a-t Main and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of 
:y kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And 
• made us unto our God kings and priests ; and we shall 
rei<jn on the earth. And I beheld and I heard the voice of 
many angels round about the throne, and the beasts and the 
elders ; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten 
thousand, and thousands of thousands ; saying with a loud 
voice : Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, 
and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, 
and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and 
on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, 
and all that are in them, heard I saying : Blessing, and hon- 
our, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the 
throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever. And the 
four beasts said, Amen. And the four and tw r enty elders fell 
down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever." 

If this be not spiritual worship — and if Christ be not the 
object of it here ; I must confess myself unable to produce or 
imagine a case, wdiere worship can be called spiritual and di- 
vine, or where it can more plainly be attributed to Christ. 

Is it not equally clear that the apostles and primitive mar- 
tyrs worshipped Christ ? And was not the practice of wor- 
shipping him, recognized among other Christians ? Let us 
see : 

Acts 7: 59, GO. " And they stoned Stephen, making invo- 



130 BB6TIMOMT OF BCBIPTUBB. [LETT, III. 

ration {hrriy.a/.ni'utrnr) and Baying : Lord Jesus, receive my 

it ! And In* kneeled down, and cried with a loud voir 
Lord, lay not this Bin to their charge ! And when he had 
laid this, he fell asleep." 

Now here is a dying martyr, who it expressly mU to "be 
filled with the Holy (Jhost," and to enjoy the vision of the 
heavenly world, and of the* Saviour who was there ; be is in 
his last momenta too — on the very verge of eternity; here is 
Bnefa a martyr, committing bis departing spirit into the hands 
of the Lord Jesus, in the very same language and with the 
same confidence] with which Jesus, when expiring upon the 
cross, committed his spirit into the hands of the Father. 
This expiring disciple also implores forgiveness tor his mur- 
derers. Of whom does he implore it? Of the same Lord 
Jesus. Can our departing spirits be committed io any be- 
ing, and the forgiveness of sin be expected of him, unless lie 
has omnipotence and supreme authority? And can a dying 
martyr, with his vyt^ lixed on the very vision of God, and 
his soul filled with the Holy Ghost, ask and pray amiss? 

2 Cor. 12: 8, 0. 'TfS€Q tovtov rgfg ror y.VQior ftOQGK&XMGm, 
nil dfioatq a^ tuov • y.(a eigtpt&fWi ■ slnyu not i t %uni± fiov 
t) yun ivPapls f'ov h uGOtrtiu Tt/.ttovTui. 'MdtGTu ovv fiaX- 
h)V y.av/l { c,i)uiu if Tais UO&BPtlCUg fiOV, ira B7UaH1JPWJ% (71 
ipl i] dwcL(JU$ Tou XfHorvii "For this thing I besought the 
Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto 
me : My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made 
perfect in weakness, Most gladly therefore will I rather 
glory in mine infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest 
Upon me." 

The Lord whom Paul here besought, is plainly Christ; for 
this same Lord, in answer to the apostle's supplication, says: 
"My grace is sufficient for thee \ for my strength (// BfomfuQ 

fiOV) is perfected in weakness." Then the apostle immedi- 
ately subjoins : k> Mo8f gladly then would I rejoice in my in- 
firmities that the strength of Christ (ij 8vvoju$ Xntcroi), 
may rest upon inc." A clearer case that Christ was the ob- 
r of the Apostle's repeated prayer, cannot well be presented. 



T. III. | tONY PTURE. 181 

1 'I : 11, 12. "Now Cod himself even our Father, 

!• [.on! .!. mi- Christ, direct oar waj into you. And 

the Lord make y«»u to inerra-r and abound in lovr our to- 
ward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward 
you 

i any distinction be here made, between the rank of 
tlioM* wli.» are addressed in supplication by the apostle? 
the twelfth verse plainly show, that the suppli- 
cation of the apostle is specially directed to the Lord, i. a to 
Gkrk 

1 Them. ± 16, 17. " Now oar Lord Jem Christ himself, 

and n our Father, which hath loved us, and hath 

given us everlasting consolation, and good hope through 
grace, comfort your hearts, and establish you in every good 
word and work." 

Here the order of the persons, to whom supplication is 
made, is the reverse of that in the last instance quoted ; which 
shows that nothing depends on the order, but that it was a 
matter of indifference with the apostle, which was placed first; 
the supplication being equally addressed to the Father and 
to Christ. 

Rom. 1:7. " To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, 
called to be saints : Grace to you, and peace from God our 
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." 

Here the same blessings are solicited and expected, from 
Christ and from the Father. See the same formula repeated 
in 1 Cor. 1: 3. 2 Cor. 1: 2. 

Acts 1:24. "And they prayed and said: Thou, Lord, 
which k no west the hearts of all men, show whether of these 
two thou hast chosen." 

That Lord here means the Lord Jesus, seems evident from 
vs. 21, 22. It is the usual appellation, moreover, which the 
book of Acts gives to the Saviour. (See above, p. 104.) 

2 Tim. 1: 1 1. u The Lord reward him according to his 
work- I" Again vs. 17, 18: "Notwithstanding the Lord 
stood with me, and strengthened me ; that by me the preaching 
might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear : 



132 TESTIMONY OF BC&EPTtJBE. [LETT. III. 

ami I was deKvtered out of the mouth of the lion. Au<l tlie 
Lord shall deliver me from every <*\il work, and will pre- 
serve me unto his heavenly kingdom ; to irhom be glory for- 
ever and ever. Amen." (Gomp. 8: 11). Usage hardly ad- 
mite a doubt bete, thai Lord means Christ. 

Nor can I separate from religions invocation, trust, and 
Confidence, SUCfc expressions as these: "Then Peter >aid : 
Silver and gold have I none, hut such as I have give I ti 
in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk," 
Acts 3: G. Nor can I see how the solemn adjuration by 
Christ (n- yoa~>T(^). which the apostle Uses in Kom. 9: 1. 
1 Tim. 2: 7 (text, recept.), can be separated from religious 
invocation or appeal. 

We mnsl add to all these instances of worship, the fact 
that Christian- were so habituated to address their supplica- 
tions to Christ, that the expression, " they who invoke Christ," 
became, as it would seem, a kind of proper name, by which 
they were in primitive times designated as Christians. 

Thus Paul (1 Cor. 1: 2) addresses himself to all £ntxu).ov- 
ft&POlS ro inniui tov y.vofov Tjpmv jfytfOt! Xnt<7TOU, IP ttuiti 
Torres, who invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, in 
EVERY place. That the verb fauxaXem is an appropriate 
one to designate the act of prayer, will not be questioned. 
The literal translation of it is to invoke. The simple mean- 
ing of the passage is: 'I address myself to all Christian-.' 
But instead of using the name Christians directly, the apostle 
a periphrasis and says : To all the invokers of Christ, i. e. 
to those who pray to him, meaning the same as uyioi^, xA//- 
rnu\ etc., in the context. He has signified also, that the 

practice of invoking Christ was not confined to Corinth. He 

addresses "those who pray to Christ in every place" (fV 7rur~ 

7/ roj^). 

Exactly in the same manner does Ananias describe Chris- 
tians, when the Lord JesUS bade him go to instruct and com- 
fort Saul. * Lord," said he, u I have heard of many con- 
cerning this man, what things he has done (*0I£ <XftOt$ 
to thy saints at Jerusalem; and even now, he has a coinmis- 



II. ll-l IMON1 IPTURE. 

§ion from the high pri.-t (<> hind all (rms* /.7/;: rn 

&*ot< who invoke thy name," L <•. all Christians. 

thing repeated in v. 21. 

The very heathen, in tin* primitive age of Christianity, 
little a< they knew about Christiai red thai tbsy 

made Christ an object of worship. l'liny, in writing 

to Trajan: M Carmen Christo, quasi Deo, Boiiti essent [i 
Christiani] die aim invieem. They (Christians) sing 

in social worship a hymn to Christ as a God." (Lib. X. 
Epic 

Bnsebius too, (Ecc Hist v. 28), in writing against the 

tendonites, appeals tu the ancient songs, of Christians, thus : 
u What. -v. a- psalms and hymns were composed by faithful 
brethren, from t lie beginning, praise Christ the word of God" 
Can any example of a church in the apostolic age, which did 
not practice thus, be produced? 

Did not the Saviour give his disciples a general precept 
and encouragement, to make him the object of player? "If 
ye shall ask anything in my name," i. e. as my disciples, on 
my account, said he to the apostles, " I will accomplish it," 
( ty gj 7ioi>]c)U>) ; John 14: 13, 14. The disciples appear to 
me to have understood this, as directing that he should be 
regarded by them as the special object of prayer. Hence, 
instead of finding few or no examples of prayer to Christ, in 
the history of the primitive Christians as exhibited in the 
New Testament, I find more of this nature than of any 
other. 

"When I have contemplated the precepts which encourage 
prayer to Christ and the worship of him, both by the inhabi- 
tants of the heavenly world and by the churches on earth, I 
then compare these things with the exclusive worship and 
trust which Jehovah claims to himself. Is. 4o: 22, 28, 
" Look unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth ; 
for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by my- 
self, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness and 
shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every 

12 



131 PB8TIMONY 01 9< RE. [LETT. III. 

tongue shall swear." Is. 1-: 8* u I am the Lord ; that is my 
mime, and my glory will I n<»t give to another, neither my 

praise to graven images. 91 Jer. 17: 6 — 7. "'Jim- s*itfc the 

Lord : Cursed be the man that trnsteth in man. and maketh 

Beih his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord ; for 

lie Bhall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not 

when good oometb, hut shall inhabit parched places in the 
wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited. Blessed is the 

man that trnsteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is. M 

Matt. 1. 1<>, u Then saith Jesos unto him: Gel thee hence, 
Satan ; lor it is written : Thou -halt worship the Lord thy 
God, and him only shalt thou serv< 

I am ready now to a *k, whether I can avoid coming to the 
conclusion, either that Christ is truly divine, inasmuch as he 
is BO often represented as the object of Worship ; or that the 
sacred writers have mistaken this great point, and led us to 
that which must be considered as idolatry. And yet the 
worship of Christ is placed, as it would seem, \\\ opposition to 
that of idols, 1 Cor. 8: 1 — 6. That Christianity utterly and 
forever renounces all idolatry — all polytheism, in a word, 
everything inconsistent with the worship of one only living 
and true Cod. is a point so plain and so universally conceded, 
that I shall not dwell lor a moment upon it. 

Were it not that J fear becoming tedious, by detailing my 
reasons for believing in the divine nature of Christ, I should 
add a great number of text-, which require us with all the 
heart to love him; to obey him; to Confide in him; and to 
commit ourselves to him; in such a manner as lean never per- 
BOade my8elf to do. with respect to any being who is not God. 
The New Testament tells me that my consolation, my privi- 
lege, my happiness must i»e derived from trusting in Christ 

Bat can I trust myself to bjinite being, when I have an infi- 
mte 9 almighty^ all-sufficient COD to whom ] may go? Shall 
J be satisfied with a mere mite, when more than all the mil 

of Peru are set before m< 

I might also add those texts, some of which are very 



. 111.1 



TESTIMONY Ol SCRIP! 



135 



atrikiii'_ r ones, where, in the New Testa the very same 

1 lii 1 i applied to Christ, which in the Old Testament arc 

1 of Jehovah. cimeiis of these follow : 



10 T 

r I am undone. 
.mi a in in of Mich* in lips j I >i 1 

I 
n flew 01 
plum unto in-'. Ii live coal 

in his hand, 

with t!i»' t-.n.. altar. 

lid it upon my mouth, and 
: this hath touched thy I 
and thine iniquity h tak m away, 
and thy sin purged. Also 1 heard the 
!. ying: Whom 

shall I send, and who will go for 
11 said I : Here am 1. send 
And he said : Go and tell this 
'••. Hear yc indeed, but under- 
il not : an e indeed, but 

not Make the heart of this 
le tar. and make their 
y, and shut their eyes ; lest they 
with their eyes, and hear with 
their ears, and understand with 
their heart, and convert, and be 
healed. 

Mai. 3: 1. Behold, I will send 
my 1 r. and he shall pre- 

pare the way before me ; and the 
,. whom k, shall sud- 

ly come to his temple, even the 
messenger of the covenant, whom 
ye delight in ; behold, he shall 
•. saith the Lord of hosts. 
Pa. 7^: 56. Yet they tempted and 
oked the most high God, and 
kept not his testimonies. 



7—41. But though he 
had done -o mam miracles before 
them, yet they believed not on him ; 
that • 1 in- the pro- 

phet might !><• fulfilled, which he 
spake : Lord, w bo hath beii< 
<>ur report ' and to whom hath the 
arm of the Lord been revealed ! 
Therefore thej could not bcl 

luse that Esaias said again : I [e 
hath blinded their eyes, and har- 
dened their heart, that they should 
uot see with their eyes, nor under- 
stand with their heart and be con- 
verted, and I should heal them. 

>e things said Esaias, when he 
saw his [Cnrist's] glory and spake 
of him- 



Mark 1:2. As it is written in the 
prophets: Behold, I -end my mes- 
senger before thy face, which shall 
prepare thy way before thee. 



1 Cor. 10: 9. Neither let us tempt 
Christ, as some of them also tempt- 
ed, and were destroyed of serpents. 



It were easy greatly to increase the number of such passages 
BS these : bat I shall desist Instead of that want of evidence, 
in the New Testament, with respect to the divinity of Christ, 
of which you repeatedly speak, and in strong terms, I find 
evidence almost everywhere to illustrate or to confirm the doc- 
trine in question. 

In fact it is often developed, to the practised eye, where 
a superficial reader would not even suspect it. For ex- 



186 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. ITT. 

ample ; in Rev. 2: 17, a promise is made to him that over- 
aagteth, that he shaH cat of the hidden manna, and wear a 
diadem like that of the high-priest, on the front of which is a 

precious -tour, and in this "a lit w name is written, which no 
man knowctli, >a\<- liim tliat teceil eth it." This is intelligi- 
ble only by a reference to the Jewish customs and the bigh- 
ts mitre The proper name of God, viz. Jehovah, 
was never pronounced bj the Jews, at least in later tii 
and in the Hebrew Bible it has no vowel points appropriate 
16 guide the pronunciation, but is always read as "^ix or 
:"n:K. and bo translated Lord or God, Josephus says, that 
it was not allowed to the Jews to pronounce the name Jeho- 
vah. Still, this name was inscribed on a metallic plate, fixed 
upon the front of the high-priest's mitre. That priest was 
the only one entrusted with the secret of pronouncing it; 
which he is understood to have done (by himself), when 
blessing the people. This explains the phrase, " which no 
man knoweth. save he that receiveth it." A mic name is to 
be added to this, on the mitre of H him that overcometh." 
What new name is there, then, that can be associated with 
the dread name of Jehovah ? I know of but one ; and this 
Pafll has developed] when he says that to Christ is given "a 
name that is above every name ... a name at which every 
knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, 
and things under the earth," Thil. 2: 9, 10. The name of 
Jesus, then, is to be associated with the awful, the peculiar, 

the incommunicable name of .Jehovah, on the crown of glory 
which the faithful follower of JesOS will wear, in the world of 
light and lo\e. 

That I have rightly referred this new name to Jesus, sec in- 
to be clear from his own word- in Rev. 3: 12, " I will write 
npon him mg new name." And again in Kev. ID: 12, lu, 

Christ is represented as having on his many crowns, "a 
name written, which no man knew but himself, 1 ' i- e. a -a- 
Cred, unpronounceable name ; which in the sequel is -aid to be 

Tm: Word oi («<>i>. 

But where shall I end, if I go on pointing out similar casts 






:il.] 9TIM0N1 PTUBE. 187 

lental evidence in favour of the great doctrine in qQ 
tion ? An attentive Bad intelligent reader cannot tail to de- 
cern them in very many portions of the New Testament i and 
to find them, moreover, bo conditioned, thai the writer ap- 
mly to build on the doctrine in question, aa om 
that is acknowledged and fell to be tree. This 1 regard as 

kind. 
In giving the preceding brief summary of scriptural evi- 
iki divinity of Christ, you will perceive that 

I have omitted a considerable number of texts, which are of- 
tentimes adduced to establish the point in question. I have 
done this tor several reason* First, those texts, the genuine 
lea di ng of which is fairly questionable, I could not with pro- 
priety adduce ; e. g. 1 John T>: 7 and some others. Secondly, 
a p loubtful as to its genuineness, can add nothing to 

the weight of authority, when the strength of evidence is 
sifted and pondered. Thirdly, I regard an eagerness to seize 
on everything of this nature, and to press it into our service, 
indicative of a feeling on our part, that our cause is some- 
what wanting in adequate support, and therefore must be 
propped up by all sorts of shores, sound and unsound. Some 
Trinitarians, I concede, (and it is to my great regret), have 
not unfrequently shown such an eagerne-s. But they are not 
alone in it. Unitarians, for the most part, put attacks upon 
the genuineness of certain texts, in the very van of their in- 
vading army. It is a mistaken policy. The text in 1 John 
o: 7 is beyond all question indefensible. But all the other 
cases of this nature which are of any importance, e. g. 1 Tim. 
o: 10, and several others, are so plainly and decidedly against 
them on diplomatic grounds, that I am astonished to see such 
attacks continually repeated. They can surely make no real 
advances in this way. The unskilled public may indeed, for 
a while, be mi-led. But sooner or later the truth will come 
out. B it' we should concede to them every text 

against the genuineness of which they contend on the ground 
of defective diplomatic certainty, it would do their cause no 
service. These are so few, and the texts which are full and 

12* 



138 V OF SCRITTl 1 [LETT. in. 

direct and above nil exception nre so many and nr, 

that the main question mast lie just where it did before these 

in the controversy began. For my part, although 
it were eafey to double the passages that might be employed 

in defending the Godhead of* Christ, when compared with 

those quoted above) J have no ambition or desire to do tin'-. 

Afl 1 have already -aid. it is not on the nwnfer, but on the 
quality and character of the witnesses that I would lay stresa. 
My feeling is, that the testimony proffered in behalf of the 
cause which \ advocate, is veracious and unimpeachable. 

Notwithstanding these considerations, however, I feel 
bound, before I quit the production of testimony, to appeal to 
one or two texts more, which have an indirect bearing on the 
Godhead of Christ, and a direct one, as it BeefiM to me, on 
the doctrine <>f tlte Trinity. I do this principally, because 
we are constantly challenged to ' produce from the New Tes- 
tament, anything which looks like the doctrine of a Trinity.' 

At the moment when Jesus was about to leave the world 
and ascend to the Father, he addressed his disciples and said : 
M All power is given to me in heaven and on earth ; Go ye. 
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," Matt. 
28: 18, 10. 

On this p&sSage T remark, first, that there is every appe a r * 
ance of tqttotUy here, so far as it respects the relation of the 
baptized person to each of these. Secondly, the iirst two of 
these will surely be admitted to be person* : the third must 
therefore be something different from a mere influence or 
energy, or else the language is very strange, and greatly ex- 
peeed to misapprehension. Thirdly, the ancient Israeli 

were M all baptized into Moses" (1 Cor. 10: 2), i. e. they ac- 
knowledged Moses as their lawfully constituted head and 
lawgiver, and that they were his followers and disciples. So 
in the new and better dispensation, where a mere human 

head or lawgiver gives place to one of higher rank, the di 

pies of Christ were to be u baptized into Father, Son, and 

Holy GhoSl ;" by which they came of COUrSC t<> acknowledge 






LETT, in.] KITTl 139 

Father, Son, and rhoet, as tl eirhead, la* 

redeemer, and sanctiti . as if ti B 

meant to place this truth at the ?eij bead of all ( "hri-tian 
profession an 1 ack I j BOt the 

name, indeed! bo! the thi 
the Holy Spirit a sere ttt^M H can ti. 

ttdi ak i with tl al Kat: 1 in the 

samerelati liani as be hinu ■ met" 

'an ground. The 
natural force ami meanii _ inch language is lost, or ob- 
ftcoi any e: 3 of it which they can give. Ami 

wli. _ a forced moaning t hemindnei 

rest~ with it, unless it is filled with party spirit, or 

obseur gnoranee. 

A a ad passage, kindred to tibia, is in 2 Cor. 13s 14. It 
runs thus : u The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the 
love of < iod, and the communion of the Holy Ghc ith 

Hl-w is a: least a prayer or supplication, on the part of Paul. 
To whom is it directed? To the Father, (for so God is here 
to be d Sod, and Holy Ghost is is the most 

natural construction. Still, I acknowledge the possibility of 
a different interpretation, viz. one which regards Paul as ex- 
ish, that ail the bh which God and Christ 

and the II it bestow, be th al they may. may rest 

upon the Corinthians. Viewed light, the | 

*e might not be decisive as to the divine nature of each. 
Thus John wit 5 g ace and peace to tl - n churches of 
Asia from •• Him who was and is and is to come, and from 

before his throne,' 1: 4. Paul aa; 

M I eha _ and the Lord • and 

the elect ai _ .1 Tim. o: 21. Ti: Saviour himi .iks 

ofcont dthful folio s" before th _ Sod," 

Luke 1 In all tl ngeh of God, 

i. e. angels of the highest order, in immediate 
waiting before his throne, are doubtless meant. Yet in neither 
case is a ation addressed to them. They are recog- 



140 i"\Y OP SCRIPTUBE. [LETT. III. 

wsed in the Apocalypse as tin- instruments of dispensing 1>1< 
iags, and in the other oases as in immediate attendance be- 
fore the throne of heavenly majesty. Jt is possible, therefore, 

to view the text, in 2 (or. 13: 11, in BOme such light] and 
in BUOh a case, it WOaM not follow with certainty that the be- 
nedict ion there uttered necessarily implies a Trinity in the 
Godhead. lint when we take into full view the formula of 
Christian baptism, it seem- to my mind more probable, that 
Pan! has spoken in conformity with this. 

At all events, it' the form of doxology employed in church 
■vices, is not to be found in the New Testament, the sub- 
stance of the thing is there. The doxologies to Christ, scat- 
tered through the epistles and the Apocalypse, are inexplica- 
ble on the ground of Unitarianism. " To him be glory and 
dominion forever and ever," '2 Pet. 3: 18. " Christ, over all, 
God blessed forever. Amen." Rom. 9: 5. These are speci- 
mens. And if Christ is merely a created being, and still 
more if he is a mere man, these doxologies are some of the 
strangest of all things which Christianity has disclosed, or 
which it requires us to believe and practise. How can we 
believe that so enlightened a dew as Paul could employ them, 
unless he believed that Christ is divine! 

Thus have I endeavoured to show, that the New Testa- 
ment bestows upon Christ the appellation of God, accom- 
panied by such adjuncts as naturally, (not to say necessarily), 
lead us to understand this word in its highest sense; that it 
attributes to him equality with God; that it represents him 
the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of the universe; 

declares his omniscience, his omnipotence, and his eternity; 
and both by precepts and examples, exhibits Christ as the 

object of prayer and divine worship, by the church in heaven 

I on earth. To these conclusions, do the plain rules of 
exegesis necessarily conduct me. 1 am sensible that allega- 
tions are frequently made, that we receive our systems 
belief from the Creeds and Confessions of faith, which In 

'•<nded from former unenlightened, and superstitious or 
philosophizing Bges. Thai some of our technical ]>hra$eulu- 



I r. in.] -i [MOB Kii'ii | 111 

:i derived from nun, who too 

boldly, and substituted nam i leas* I am heady t<> con- 

I feel the embarrassments, which, on account of this, 

mally thrown in the way of inculcating troth at the 

present time. .\| apt to suppo-e. that it' you 

throw away the old term* Of n<i, i reject the old i'l 

also. J perficial thinkers who will sober- 

ly believe this. It is in general] therefore] a sufficient reason 
with oat for dismissing phraseology, when it moat, almost of 

es.Mty, he* misunderstood by the great body of i in 11. Vet 

idden and entire revolution in theology in this reap 

indesiraHe ; because Buch a revolution most again 
1. at iirst, to other misapprehensions. J am willing, there- 
tore, to retain many terms which have become venerable for 
their antiquity, which I should reject without hesitation, if 
tlu-y were now presented de nuco. 

I am not conscious of being led to the adoption of Trinita- 
rian views, or to the ascription of true and proper divinity to 
Christ, by any creed or any human authority on earth. Un- 
less I am quite ignorant of myself, the only influence which 
creeds and confessions exercise over me, is to modify my 
phraseology. I take the language of theology as I find it ; and 
do not venture upon the composition of a new nomenclature. 

And now, in concluding this Letter, permit me to say, 
that as reason does not, and cannot, decide against the doc- 
trine of the Trinity, as explained in my second Letter; nor 
against the union of the divine and human natures in Christ ; 
the question whether these are truths or not, rests solely on 
the decision of revelation. What then is that decision ? 
This question I have endeavoured to answer. 

My immediate inducement for undertaking the above ex- 
amination of the Scripture doctrine of the Trinity, was the 
challenge which you make (p. 9) in the following words : 
" We challenge our opponents to adduce one passage in the 
New Testament, where the word God . . . unless turned 
from its usual sense by the connection, does not mean the 
Father." I have accepted this challenge, not I hope in the 



142 CTTMOXT OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III. 

spirit of contest, but with the desire of contributing, bo far as 
lies in my power, to develops what the New Testament does 
teach, in relation to this matter. I have laboured to show* 

that the very reason why I believe Christ to be truly divine, 
i< iecause the connection, when he is c<il(r<l (_;<>i>, ascribes to 
him such attributes and works, a$ leave* me no room to doubt 
that the New Tesiameni writers meant to assert his prop 
divinity. 

After stating your apprehensions in regard to the doctrine 
thai Christ lias two natures, the belief of which you affirm to 
be "an enormous tax on human credulity," you say : "I atu 

aware that these remarks will he met by two or three texts, 
in which Christ IS called God ^ and by a class of pa- 

not very numerous, in which divine properties are .-aid to be 
ascribed to him,'' p. 11. Whether the number of texts in 
which Christ is called God, amounts to no more than two or 
three, it would be superfluous now to inquire, when they lie 
before us, and can easily be counted. We can also judge, 
whether the class of passages is "not very numerous, in 
which divine properties are said to be ascribed to him," with 
equal facility. It is too late, however, for you and me to rest 
our faith upon the number of passages that inculcate a doc- 
trine. We have conceded the liible to be of divine authority. 
The simple question is : What does any passage mean, ac- 
cording to the rules of interpretation admitted in all other 
Oases ? This being ascertained, only two courses are before 
06 : the one to receive its meaning as the guide of our faith; 
the other to reject its authority, and deny our obligation to 
believe the decisions of the Scripture. If the New Testament 
does teach that Christ is not really divine, but a mere finite 
creature, and this can be made out by an unbiassed interpre- 
tation of it, I must either receive this doctrine, receive it im- 
plicitly, (for if I am not deceived in respect to myself, I only 
desire to know what God has taught in order to believe it), 
or else I must reject all claims to inspiration in the sacred 
writer-, and follow their instructions only so far as they coin- 
cide with my own speculations. 1 am fully satislied there is no 



ii i r. in. f OF SCRIPTURE, 1 18 

middle path here ; and thai a man who investigates for him- 
Ktensively and independently, must eventually follow 
one or the other of these com 

\ ince me then thai jrou apply the principles of interpre- 
tation which you have laid down, in an unbiassed manner, 
and thai the New Testament does according to them clearly 

h that Jesus ifl not, and cannot be, divine, and yon will 

make me a convert to the doctrines, (at least to Borne of 

them), which yon embrace. Where the apostle- lead me, I 

will <_ r o ; or if not, then I will renounce all deference to them. 
While 1 have a being also, I will cherish a grateful remem- 
brance of any man, who shall convince me by sound reason- 
ing, that I am in an error on this great subject, and am wan- 
dering from the path of life. 

But you will allow me to say, what you will doubtless af- 
firm of yourself: k I cannot be convinced, until I am satisfied 
that my principles of interpretation are wrong, and my ap- 
plication of them erroneous.' You have described (p. 14) in 
what manner you avoid the conclusion drawn from those 
texts which call Christ God, and which apparently ascribe 
divine attributes to him. On the principles of exegesis which 
you have there disclosed, I shall remark in another letter. I 
will at present say only, that they appear to me far from be- 
ing well established. 

I hope your candour will concede, that the positions which 
I have just laid down are correct, and are such as become 
every sincere lover of truth. I am quite ready to grant, that 
we ought not to expect to convince you and your friends, by 
using reproachful epithets or severe appellations. We can- 
not convince you by appealing to our New England fathers, 
or to their creeds ; to the ancient fathers of the church, or to 
any body of men whatever. You may always say in reply 
to us : * Are not men fallible? And have not the best of 
uninspired men cherished some errors? Give us the reasons 
why our fathers received the doctrines in question, and then 
we will hear you ; the fact that they did receive them is 
merely a part of church history, but certainly no theological 



Ill 51 MOW! OF B< KM'l DBS. [LETT. in. 

jument The papal hierarchy is supported by many of 
the ancient lathers ; and perhaps there never has been a 
sect in Christendom, who did not feel that they might make 
an appeal to fathers, whom they at least respected.' To this 

reply J have nothing to object 

• can we convince you, by a tenacious and unrea 
able opposition to all critical examination of the New Testa- 
ment ; or by throwing out hints in our sermons or writings, 
that critical studies belong only to those who have a wish to 
be heretical or skeptical ; or by a forced and mystical expla- 
nation of various passages of Scripture, and converting them 
to the Support of sentiments Which they never were designed 
to support. The sound rules of interpretation will soon 
sweep away every vestige of such defective and extravagant 
opinions about the word of God; and orthodoxy must Stand 
or fall, at last, by the simple decision of the Scriptures inter- 
preted according to the general laws of language. 

On the other hand; you will, I hope, as cheerfully concede 
that we cannot be convinced by calling us hard names ; by 
misrepresenting our sentiments; by proving that Calvin 
helped to burn Servetus ; by affirming that our sentiments 
come from creeds and confessions of human authority, fabri- 
cated by superstition and philosophy ; by representing us as 
gloomy, superstitious, malignant, and unsocial ; by appropri- 
ating to Unitarians all that is kind and noble and generous 
and exalted, adn leaving to us only all that is opposite to 
these virtues; by affirming that we tire desirous of infringing 
upon Christian liberty, and of establishing an Inquisition to de- 
fend Our sentiments, and by exhorting others to resist such ty- 
ranny; or by representing US as admitting in words that God is 
kind and paternal, while we think meanly of him. and treat him 

the heathen did their Jupiter. Such things may add fuel 
to the fire of controversy ; but can the lover of truth and of 
the word of God be Convinced by them I They are the ; 
indeed of controversialists — and arts like them, I am -orry 
to say, aiv not confined to any one party. Passion has m< 
control over disputants than they arc' aware of. Zeal for 



: r. ill.] I i (MOOT "i B< Kii'H U • 1 T> 

what Ihey believe to be truth, w whal they think inspii 
them: while perhape their words, or the spirit of their rep- 
leotations, " breathe <>ut threatening*," it' no! " daughter/ 1 
|q their opponents. I hardly dare trust myself to write this 

paragraph, least I should catch the spirit while I am describ- 

it. I know in some measure how frail I am; bid I think 
1 A of such a spirit, in whatever party 

it may be found 

In consulting writers of different views and sentiments, one 
grieved to find how much of this spirit has been indulged. 

I have seen it even in many great and good men. Possessed 
of feelings naturally ardent, I am aware that there is reason to 
tremble tor myself, lest I may, in some respect or other, 
transgress the laws of Christian propriety in these letters, 
and hinder in a measure the conviction, in the minds of some, 
which they might possibly produce. 

In one thing we shall certainly be agreed. The sober in- 
quirer after truth must be convinced by reason and argument. 
All else is nothing to him. And where these lead him, he 
will go. The path of truth is the path of duty. The appro- 
bation of God is worth infinitely more to a sincere and candid 
and honest and believing heart, than all the honour which 
party zeal can bestow, or the world is able to give. 



POSTSCRIPT. 

After finishing the above letter, your "Note for the second 
Edition" came to hand. But as it seemed to me, that most 
which it contained had already been anticipated, I did not think 
it of importance to change the shape of the preceding letter, 
and adapt it to your Note as w r ell as to your Sermon. I was 
still less inclined to this, because I had endeavored, as far as 
possible, to avoid giving any personal shape to the controversy; 
knowing how bitter and irrelevant to the original subject all con- 
troversies soon become, when personalities are admitted. I have 
not the most distant design of saying anything, with a view to 
wound your personal sensibility ; but I do feel, and I ought to 

13^ 



14G POSTSCRIPT. [lett. in. 

feel, a deep interest in addressing the understanding and reason 
of a man, who by bis weight of character, sobriety of mind, and 
eminent talents, has acquired bo much influence in society as 
you have. And in order to do thia with propriety, I have en- 
deavored as far as possible, to throw the whole Bubject into the 
shape of a discussion respecting principles; and to avoid that 
form of writing, which too commonly involves >nal reflec- 

tion. 

Will you now permit me, in this informal way, to add a few 
things, which the perusal of your Note has suggested to m 

I am unable to reconcile the fust passage of your Note, with 
another, in the body of your Sermon. In the former you say : 
"We are told, by Trinitarians, that Jesus Christ is the supreme 

God, the same Being as the Father, and that a leading end of 
Christianity is to reveal him in this character. 9 ' In the latl 

you sa\ : M According to this doctrine, [i. e. the doctrine of the 
Trinity], there are three infinite and equal persons, possessing 
supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost Each 
of these persons, as descrihed by theologians, has his own par- 
ticular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love each 
other, converse with each other, and delight in each other's so- 
ciety. They perform different parts in man's redemption, each 
having his appropriate 4 office, and neither doing the work of the 
other. The Son is mediator, and not the Father. The Father 
ds the Son, and is not himself sent ; nor is he conscious, 
like Che Son, of taking flesh. Here then we have three intelli- 
gent agents, possessed of different consciousnesses, different 
wills, and different perceptions, performing different acts, and 
sustaining different relations; and if these things do not imply 
and constitute three minds or beings, we are utterly at a loss to 
know how three minds or beings arc. 1 to he 1 formed. '' 

Bui how can Trinitarian's maintain that Jesus Christ is the 
"saw Being as the Father," when a prominent trait of their d< 
trine is, that there i< a distinction between him and the Father? 
You yourself represent them as even holding this distinction to 
be equal to that which exists between two different men. This 
indeed is incorreet j hut it is equally so, to represent them 
holding that Jesus Christ is the u $>tm< Being as the Father™ if 
you mean by this the BCtnU in all rcspn-fs. 

Nor can 1 see the propriety of the remark in your Note, that if 

Chri<t were ■ the same being as the Father . . . we should i 

peet to hear him continually spoken of as the' Supreme Cd." 
Fct first, are we to receive the hook of Cod as it is, or are we 



I r. III.] POSTSCRIPT. 147 

at lihertj to insist that it mtisl be conformed to our eijMefatfoi 
rondly, if Chrisi was truly man, (a point as certain 
that Christ ever existed), and wa* conversam in the kumtm n<i- 

tun With mm, how, in a hook whnli give* Ufl tin- h i.-toi \ of 

what In' said and did during his mcamatuntf should we expect 
to hear him continually spoken of as the m p rtrn t Godl The 

of such an expectation Bee me to be, at least, very 
questionable. 

In truth the sacred writers do not appear to me to write at 
nalists, on the subject of Christ's divinity. It is the 
w;t\ with men, who have extravagant views of the importance 
of am particular subject, to be ever dwelling upon it, and tak- 
ing occasion to introduce it as often as possible. Thus I have 
heard some preachers, who will not utter a single public dis- 
course, or offer a single prayer, without letting it be known of all 
men, that they are champions tor the doctrine of the Trinity. 
I have heard others, w ho never fail to let their hearers know 
that they are emancipated ftorn the thraldom of the dark ages; 
that they have thrown off the shackles of creeds and confes- 
sions, and forms imposed by ignorant and bigoted men ; that 
they are enlightened and reasonable Christians ; and that their 
audience are bound in duty to become their imitators. The holy 
apostles however possessed, as I must believe, none of the spirit 
which prompts to either of these courses. They did not view 
subjects in a distorted and sectarian light The edifice of truth 
— the temple of the living God — rose under their hands not on- 
ly into a lofty and magnificent structure, but into one which 
was as conspicuous for its symmetry as for its grandeur. 

All parts of Christian doctrine held their proper place in the 
em which they taught. Why should they then be continu- 
ally speaking of Christ as supreme God, when (as I verily believe) 
they expected no professed follower of Christ to call this doc- 
trine in question. John seems to have had opponents to it in his 
eye, when he wrote the first verse of his gospel ; but excepting 
this, I do not remember another passage of the New Testament 
which has the aspect of opposition to gain savers, in regard to 
the divinity of Chri<t. The apostles doubtless expected to be 
believed, when they had once plainly asserted anything. That 
they are not, is indeed to be lamented ; but it cannot be charged 
to their fault. They felt (what we feel now) that very frequent, 
strong, and direct asseverations of anything are apt to produce a 
suspicion in the minds of a hearer or reader, that the person 
making them has not arguments on which lie relies, and so sub- 



148 POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. III. 

stitutrs confident affirmations in iheir room; or that he is him- 
aalf but imperfectly satisfied with tin* cause which be defends 5 
or that be baa sinister motives in view. Pot myself 1 confess J 

atn inclined to suspect a man of all these, who makes \er\ fre- 
quent and confident asseverations. 

J am the more satisfied, then, that the New Test treats the 

Subject in question as one which was not controverted, and as 
one which was not expected to he called in question. My con- 
clusion from the apostles' mode of treating it is, I acknowle<L 
quite different from that which JTOU draw, as stated in your Ser- 
mon and Notes. But with my present views, I must think it to 
be more probable than yours. 

In regard to what follows in your Note, most of it lias been 
anticipated. I will touch Upon Otlly a few points. 

With respect to the passages which we adduce in proof of 
Christ's divine nature, you observe that the " Strength of the 
Trinitarian argument lies in those, in which Jesus is called 
God." This may be true: but it lies in them, as I have from 
the first endeavoured to show, not simply because the name God 
is given to him, but because those things are ascribed to him as 
God which no being hut the supreme God can perform. My 
ivhole argument is constructed on Ihis ground ; while your whole 
Note stands on the ground, that we draw our conclusion sim- 
ply from the fact that the appellation of God is given to Christ. 

What you say respecting the argument in favour of Christ's di- 
vine nature, from the name given him in Matt. 1: 23, accords in 
the main with my own views. To maintain, as some have 
done, that the name l/nmanuel proves the doctrine in question, 
is a fallacious argument. Is not Jerusalem called Jehovah our 
rigkkoutnem. And is Jerusalem divine, because such a name is 
given to it ? 

Why should you savin the third paragraph of your Note, that 
in looking through M Matthew, ."Mark, and Luke, you meet with 
no instance in which Christ 18 called God?" Are there no 
proofs here of his omniscience, of his omnipotence, of his au- 
thority to forgive sin, of his supreme and legislative right? 
And are not these things better proof of his divine nature than 
a mere name can he? Why moreover should such an invidious 
distinction he applied, to the prejudice of John's writings, and 

of the Epistles? Do you not admit all the New Testament to 

he of divine origin and authority? Of what importance then is 
it, whether the doctrine of Christ's divinity is found in one part 
oi another r Besides, if any disciple could know who the Loid 



ill.] POST* kiim. * I 10 

in reality was, has an) one I better eUa 10 bi considered as 
knowing it than John, tin dimple u who leaned on Jesus 1 be> 
som 

i , have passed the whole of John h l, with mevelg oeae* 
sseating on the namt d*of« Mj deer Sir, can \<>u expeel to sat* 
i-t\ eandid inquirers with this! Are you " () t bound to tell us 
how tin- Ijogos (Won 1) could artak the worlds (va TruVru, the 
uni\n>. ethia text is disposed of? You must toll us how 

'/'/v power, the highest, the distinguishing act of Deity, which 
the characteristic and prominent feature of the true 

! in distinction from all false gods, (Is. 10: 10 and onward), 

ean be fdtgakdl When you can explain this, then yon will 
bring us upon ground, where we shall be unable to controvert 

the Gnostics, who denied that the Jehovah of the Old Testa- 
ment is the supreme God. Inferior power, they maintained, 
competent to create the world. What loss do they, who 
ibe creation to Christ and yet reject his divinity? 

Why should you pass over all that on which we rely for 
proof, and touch only that on which we do not profess to place 
confident reliance? I mean, why should you descant on the 
name God, and say nothing of the attributes ascribed to him who 
bears this name? If we should argue in the same manner with 
you, ought we to expect to convince you ? Much less could we 
fairly acquit our consciences of an obligation to represent fairly 
the gospel of Christ to the world, should we publish to them a 
solemn appeal, in which we should endeavor to make them be- 
lieve, that all the arguments in favor of a particular doctrine held 
by many Christians, consisted in that very thing on which they did 
not rely ; or at most, in that which constituted merely but a part 
of their grounds of belief. 

The simile from Plato and Socrates, 1 must think, is less hap- 
pily chosen, than your fine taste and cultivated mind commonly 
lead you to choose. In the same breath that you say " Plato 
was in the beginning with Socrates, and was Socrates," you 
add, "that whoever saw and heard Plato, saw and heard, not 
Plato, but Socrates, and that as long as Plato lived, Socrates 
lived and taught." That is, your first sentence would either be 
not at all understood, or understood of course in a sense totally 
different from that which you meant to convey, unless you 
added a commentary along with the sentence. John has in- 
deed added a commentary; but this is, that he means to call 
Christ the God who created the Universe. Of this commentary 
you have taken no notice. But of this you are bound to take 

13* 



150 rOSTSCKIi'T. [LETT. III. 

notice, ifyoq mean to convince those who differ from you, or to 
deal uprightly with those whom you design to instruct. 
On the texts John 20: 2a Acta 20: 28. Rom. 9: 5. J Tim. dt 16 

Ilcb. 1: (». and John .*>: '.20, I have already said what 1 wish to 
>a\. at present The remarks in your Notes do not sinn to 

call for any new investigation. 

you say, (near the elose of your Note), that you have " col- 
lected all the passages in the New Testament in which Jet 
supposed to he called (iod." The foregoing letter, however, does 
represent us as supposing that there are still more, in which lie 
is called Cod; although I have omitted not a lew, in which 
many Trinitarians have tttppostd that Christ is called God. Why 
you should affirm this, when nearly every hook on the doctrine 
of the Trinity that ever has been published by Trinitarians, will 

contradict it, I am unahle to explain. 

Von repeal also the assertion here, " that in two or three pas- 

thc title [of God] may he given him, [Christ] ; hut in 

every case, it is given in connections and under circumstances, 

which imply that it is not to he received in its highest and most 

literal sense." 

But in no single instance have you noticed the "connections 
and circumstances," in which the appellation God is bestowed 
on Christ. Can you reasonably expect your thinking readers 
will take this assertion upon credit? Are you not sacredly ob- 
ligated to prove to these same readers, by the Scriptures interpre- 
tdl according to Hie universal laws of exjdaining human language 
that the New Testament writers have not ascribed to Christ 
creative power, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, divine 
worship, ditoine honours, and denial existence? What are names 
in this dispute? Show that these attributes are not ascribed to 
Christ, and you make us Unitarians at once. Do not take the 
advantage of representing our arguments as consisting in thai 

on which we do not place reliance, and then say to your read- 
ers: 'Tbifl is all which Trinitarians have to allege in their own 
favour.' Dispute can never he terminated in this way. Meet 
fairly and openly the points in debate. Many of your readers 
are too intelligent to he satisfied with any other course. Any 
other does not become your high character and distinguished 
talents. 



LETT. IV.] M L» NATURE OF CHRIST. 151 



L E T T B R I V. 

i bend and \)\ ub Sir, 
I\ my Lbi Letter,] ende aroo red to- offer reasons why I 

believe that Christ i< truly divine. You will very naturally 

m< to take some notice of those texts, on which you 

tally rely, to prove bis inferiority to the Father. 

This I must do ; but in as summary a manner as possible. 

Not because it would not be easy to say much, even more 

y than to write brieily, and yet with perspicuity; but be- 
cause there would be danger of protracting the subject, and 
tiring the patience of readers. 

Let me begin, then, by stating certain things which are 
intimately connected with the subject in question. While I 
believe that Christ is truly divine, I believe that he is as tridy 
human, i. e. that he was a real man, and lived, acted, suffered, 
and died as a man. He resembled, however, man in his 
primitive state, i. e. Adam as he came out of the hands of 
his Maker, lie was pure and sinless. But he possessed all 
the feelings and all the innocent infirmities of human nature. 
I know no proposition that can possibly be proved from the 
New Testament, if this cannot ; nor do I know of a more ab- 
surd heresy than that of the Doceta3, who averred that Christ 
was a man in appearance merely, and not in reality. 

I had actually added to this last sentence, the following 
one : " In this, I know, you perfectly accord with me ;" but 
hesitating for a moment whether it was correct, I instituted a 
a reexamination of your Sermon, in order to see if this were 
the case. I can scarcely express my surprise, when, after a 
diligent search, I was not able to find an intimation that 
Christ was truly and properly a man. All that you maintain 
is, that he was a being distinct from the Father, and inferior 
to him. I must retract therefore my sentence against the 



lo2 iivmax NAina. (>f cum [lett. rv. 

Dooetoj lest I should Beem to have treated your opinion with 
v.rity. I > 1 1 1 the state of my mind in regard to the weight 

of evidence, I cannot retract If the evidence be not over- 
whelming, tliat Christ was perfectly man, I eannot conceive 
it possible, that any point in theology or morals is capable of 
being established. 

The Gnostics maintained, that from the supreme Divinity 
pro ceed ed certain Eons, who were a kind of lesser gods ; and 
one of whom (Christ) created the world. This Eon descend- 
ed upon Jesus at his baptism, and forsook him at his cruci- 
fixion. In what important respect he differs from this, who 
holds t<> a supcrangelic soul in Christ, and a human body, 
it most be presumed you do), I confess I cannot see. 
The Sor'mian theory seems to me incomparably more ration- 
al, and more tenable, in respect to this matter, than any 
shade of the Arian hypothesis. If the evidence be not com- 
plete, that Christ was really a man from his birth, actions, 
sufferings, death, and affirmations respecting himself, then 
how is it to be proved that Christ ever existed at all ? And 
will you refuse to assent to the proposition, that Christ partici- 
pated in the divine nature, because you cannot see how such a 
union of different natures could take place, and yet believe 
that a human body was united to a soul not human? To 
what order or class of beings, then, does this new compound 
and strangely mixed person belong? He is not divine; he 
is not human, for a human soul is surely essential to human 
nature ; nor is he angelic, for angels have no corporeal 
forms. Are we to be freed from muster}/, then, by such a 
view of Christ 's person? It does seem to me, if there be 
mystery in any theory which has ever been proposed respect- 
ing the person of Christ, it is surely to be found here. I will 
not say, (as you do about the twofold nature of Christ in 
which we believe), that "it is an enormous tax upon human 
credulity;" but I must say, that it appears to me more like 
SUCh a tax, than any other theory with which the church has 
hitherto been agitated. I can never bring myself to view it 
as probable, in the remotest degree, unless I iind it in the 



it. iv.] ii ; I 

Hut there I find that the Logos, who existed be- 

1 1 1" world wa> made, u.i- 6 n that God wlm < 

\ tool then admit him to be it super- 
angelic being simply, until 1 am convinced, either thai John 
was mistaken, or Lhat his Lai has a different meaning 

Q that which it plainly appears to have. 

Afl to the which maintains that Christ w;is God's 

Son, before the creation of the world, (and of 

course before his incarnation), and Cod'- own Son in the 

in which Solomon was the son of David, it is 

natural to ask, first: Who then was his mother! And 

ondly: How much do the Divinities of the Christian 

tern, viewed in such a light as this, differ from Jupiter and 

his progeny among the Greeks and Romans ? 

After all, I cannot but hope that I have not understood 
you correctly, and that 1 have not sullicient grounds to believe 
that you embrace any species of Arianisrn, or deny the proper 
humanity of Christ. For if this humanity be not a matter 
of fact, I cannot help believing, that we must forever aban- 
don the hope of acquiring any definite ideas of what the wri- 

- of the New Testament meant to teach, in any case what- 
ever. 

To return to my purpose. The proper humanity of Christ 
being considered as an established fact, I have one general 
observation to make on the principles of exegesis which are 
connected with it. 

It is this, viz., that inasmuch as Christ has truly a human 
nature, everything said of him in respect to this nature, must 
necessarily be spoken of him in a capacity in which he is 
inferior to the Father. In a word, as his human nature is 
inferior to the divine, so whatever has relation to it, or is 
predicted of it, must of course be that which implies inferior- 
ity to the divine. 

We do then, (if you will allow me to use your own ex- 
pressive words, though applied by you in a manner some- 
what different), M we do maintain, that the human properties 
and circumstances of Christ, his birth, sufferings and death 



154 HI/MAX NATllir. 01 CHBI8T. [LKTT. IV. 

— his praying to God, his ascribing to God all hh power and 
offices; the acknowledged properties of Christ, we Bay, 
oblige us to interpret" them o( human nature; and to draw 
the conclusion that whatever could be predicated of a real 
man, pk>US and sinless might be predicated of him. How 
would he — how could he — have assumed our nature, (except 
as the DocetSB affirmed that he did, viz. in appearance only), 

Unless everything could he predicated of him which properly 
belongs to man? Accordingly, we know that " he increased 
in wisdom, stature, and favour with God and man;" that he 
ate, drank, slept, laboured; Was fatigued, hungry, thirsty ; 
rejoiced and .sympathized with his brethren, wept, Was in 
an agony — prayed, bled, died, was buried, and rose again. 
If these things do not forever exclude all hope of making 
any shade of the Arian theory probable, I must confess that 
I am an entire stranger to the nature of evidence, and to 
what the New Testament contains. 

Do you ask me, how you shall distinguish, when a text 
speaks of Christ in respect to his human nature, or in respect 
to his divine nature? I answer : Just as when you speak of 
a man, you distinguish whether what is said relates to liis 
body or his soul. When I say : 'Abraham is dead,' I mean 
obviously his mortal part When I say: 'Abraham is alive/ 
I mean obviously his immortal part. When the evangelist 
says that Jesus increased in stature, and wisdom, and in 
favour with God and man ; and when he allirms of him other 
things predicable of our human nature, he obviously means 
to apply all this to his human nature. When he allirms that 
the Logos is God, and that he made the universe ; when the 
apostle Bays, that he is God over all and blessed forever; I 
cannot help thinking it to be equally obvious, that tiiey pre- 
dicate this of his (Heine nature. The simple answer to your 
question then is, that we must determine which nature is 
meant, by what IS affirmed Concerning it. The subject is 

known Sjy its predicaU$ i i. e. ex praedieatis cernitur subjec- 
turn. 

To the remarks just made on the proper humanity of 



r. iv.] in-M vv N LWB iikist. 155 

Chr 1 to the principles of ; ^ which result fa 

it, let m add, 

andly, that the appellation Father, is not always 
It designate that distinction in the Godhead which wt com- 
nonlv describe by calling it thr first permm* It is sometimes 

a general title of the divine nature, (fik* Unit. •»-: 6. Naiah 

63: Matt. :>: 16, ft. ft t. 7: 11. John 8: 11). In 

manner Kvqios (Lord) is often applied to Christ 

particular; and sometimes to God 88 a general appella- 
tion. The divinity is called Father, on account of that pe- 
culiar and provident care which he extends to all the crea- 
tures of his power. He is called Lord (Kvnio^), because of 
Us uniwrsal dominion. 

Proper attention to this obvious principle will explain 
several pttf which have been thought to relate merely 

to what is denominated the first person in the Trinity, and to 
ascribe properties to him in an exclusive manner. 

Thirdly, there is another observation, which I cannot re- 
frain from making here, and which seems to me of great im- 
portance, in regard to our mode of thinking and reasoning on 
the subject of the distinction in the Godhead. This is, that 
no terms which are applied by the Scriptures to designate 
this distinction, or to predicate anything of it, can be sup- 
posed fully and definitely to express what exists in the God- 
head, or what is done by it. The obvious reason of this is, 
that the language of men, (being all formed from perceptions 
of finite objects, by beings who are of yesterday, and whose 
circle of vision is extremely limited), cannot possibly be ade- 
quate to express fdly and definitely what pertains to the self- 
existent and infinite God. How often do men forget this, in 
their reasonings about the Deity ! In some things, nearly 
all men agree in observing caution, with regard to language 
which is applied to God. When the Scripture speaks of his 
having eyes, ear-, hand-, feet, etc., all men, who do not rave 
with Immanuel Swedenborg, understand these terms as being 
figurative. They do so for the obvious reason, that God is 
a spirit, and that things of this nature can be literally. pre- 



156 norAX natcke of ctiri [lett. rr. 

fficat c(l only of human beings that have flfesh and blood. AVe 
mean to say : I Sod sees ; God hears; God orti ; God /^ 
when we attribute to him those members, which we employ 
in performing Bach acts. And still, tins language i-. from 

the nature of the case, nn l v an approximation to a full and 
complete description. What corresponds in tin* infinite, 
omniscient, omnipresent Spirit, to our seeing, and fcoi 
and dctiiKj, and moving^ must necessarily be different, in 

many important respects, from all the8C things in us. 

When we say: (iod is in heaven ; the Lord looked down, 
or came down, from heaven: Jehovah <it> upon a throne 
high and lifted up ; or when we predicate anything of liim 
which corresponds to the exaltation and magnificence of 
earthly monarch* ; we understand, of course, that this lan- 
guage i- not to be taken literally, and as adequate to a com- 
plete description, but only as the language of approximation. 
When we say: God is angry; God hates: God scorns; 
the Lord will deride, will laugh, will frown, will abhor, and 
the like ; do we predicate all these things of God in a literal 
manner, or do we understand them all as conveying to us an 
idea of something in the divine affections, actions, or mode 
of treating us, which corresponds to something that men do 
or feel ? The answer is very obvious; and in all this mat- 
ter we apprehend or feel little or no difficulty. At least, 

none but enthusiastic visionaries, who would fain make 
heaven like earth, and God like themselves; or ignorant 
men, whose thoughts are so chained down to the objects of 
sense, as to be incapable of elevation above them ; are em- 
barrassed by such subjects, or substantially misapprehend 
them. 
Are we not now prepared to advance one step further: 

May we not say, when the Scripture speak- of the Log* 
becoming flesh and dwelling among us ; of his dwelling in 
the bosom of the Father; of his coming from God and b 

of him; of his humbling himself and taking upon hiin- 
self the condition of a servant, and other things of the like 
nature : that we are not to suppose this language is adequate 



LETT. IV.] n \ l i U Oi I DU 1 ; '7 

'v and i 7 the incarnation of the Son if 

I. or his distinction from, or connection with the Fath< 
It is all merely the lamgw imoium toward a tow 

plete description. It is merely this of course, and n< 
ril\- nothing more, as it regards description of the mtmnmr of 
these things. Lai • from its very nature, mu<t be in- 

i such description. It was not formed with such 
w ; ami finite beings, moreover, may well be sup- 
able of forming it so as to be adequate to the lull 
: definite description of all that pertains to the divinity. 
It may aevertfa enough to excite our higb 

interest, and to command our best obedience. And this un- 
doubtedly is done, in the case which has just been mentioned. 
The principle of exegesis here exhibited, had it been early 
acknowledged, and generally practised upon, would have 
the world a great deal of dispute, and two parties of 
i much trouble. The one of these are men, who, while 
admitting the inadequacy of language in other respects fully 
and definitely to describe the divinity, have taken it for granted 
here, thai no such inadequateness was to be found, and have 
sought to define, and distinguish, until they have overwhelmed 
themselves and their readers with subtilties too tenuous for 
comprehension. The other, hostile to the doctrine of a dis- 
tinction in the Godhead, have forced upon the expressions in 
question a sense that was far-fetched, and which violence only 
could make them to speak. It seems to me, that the path of 
sound reason and common sense is the medium between these 
two extremes. I would not do violence to the expressions in 
question; nor would I understand them as/iiUy and definite- 
ly describing what does exist in God, or is done by him. I 
believe they are, as I have said, the language of approxima- 
tion ; that they signify something which is in God, or some- 
thing that has been done by him, that corresponds to those 
things among men which would be described by language of 
the like nature ; and something too of the highest interest and 
of the deepest moment to the welfare of the human race. And 
though it might gratify my curiosity, and perhaps my pride, 

14 



158 ti. \i- EUUJED Om Bl UNITARIANS. [LETT. IT- 

to know something more of the divine constitution or mode of 
existing and acting) yet I can have no assurance, no good i 
son to believe, thai it would contribute at present to facilit 
my duties, or to increase mj happiness. J certainly have no 
good reason to suppose, that in my present state, I am capa- 
ble of understanding SUCh subjects beyond what is already re- 
vealed respecting them. 

With the observations before us that have now been made, 
I will next proceed to make some remarks on such New- 
Test, representations of Christ, as have been supposed to pre- 
sent serious difficulties in regard to the views of Trinitarians. 

Christ, in his mediatorial capacity, I take to be a complex 
person, who may be spoken of as either human or divine; in 
like manner as we may say of ourselves, we are mortal or we 
are immortal. As Mediator, then, one may truly say that by 
his obedience he merited and obtained a high reward ; i. e. 
this is predicated of that nature, which was capable of obey- 
ing and of being rewarded. So God is said to have M highly 
exalted him, and given him a name above every nam 
(Phil. 2: — 11). In a similar way, all power is given him 
in heaven, and in earth, i. e. he is constituted " head over all 
things to his church.'' (Matt. 28: 18). Acting as such a 
head, ''' all enemies are put under his feet." (1 Cor. 15: 25 
— 27). And this mediatorial dominion, when the work of a 
mediator is completed, will be resigned at the final judgment, 

i Cor. i;>: 2a 

Of the Bame tenor arc many passages. AVhen God is 
to be ih&head of Christ (1 Cor. 11:3), I understand it of 

that nature in Christ of which this can be predicated. When 
Christ is called the image of the invisible God, the brightnem 
of the Father's glory and the express image (y aqaxT 1]q) of 
his person) i- <*. of him; or the only begotten of the Father, 

the Son of God; God's own Son; God's beloved Son; his 
dear Son, etc.; I understand all this phraseology as descrip- 
tive of his mediatorial nature and station. 1 know in«l< 
that many of these texts ha\ 6 been appropriated by some 
Trinitarians, to prove the divine nature of Christ ; in my an- 






!\\] I 11 D ON IV lSvIIAUlANS. 159 

sion, however, this has been done injudiciously, and 
without any solid reason. Texts of this class may be found. 

;. 17: 5. John 1: II. l<>! 86, II: 1". ft 86. Col 1: tft. 

II. !,. i: . . Rom. - 
Iii Heb. 5: 7 — 10, is a passage which has occasioned modi 

•illation. " Who in the day* of Ins lle>h, when lie had 

up prayers and supplications, with strong dying and 

ps, unto him that was able to Bare him from death, and 

heard in that he feared, though he were a Son, yet 
learned he ohedienee by the things which he Suffered ; and 

made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation 

unto all them that obey him; called of God, an high priest 
after the order of Melchisedee." 

If Christ were really /<f( man, what is more perfectly con- 
sonant with reason and piety, than that he should act in the 
manner here described; or than that lie should be exalted to 
glory as the reward of these actions, and be constituted the 
Saviour of his people ? 

It is certainly more difficult to satisfy the mind in regard 
to John 14: 28 : M My Father is greater (fittXojf) than I." 
From the context of this passage it appears not to have been 
the object of Jesus, on this occasion, to compare his own na- 
ture with that of the Father, but his condition. " If ye loved 
me," said he to his weeping disciples, "ye would rejoice that 
I said, I go unto the Father ; for the Father is greater than 
I ;" i. e. ye would rejoice that I am to leave this state of suf- 
fering and humiliation, and resume that " glory which I had 
with the Father, before the world was." You ought to re- 
joice at my exaltation to the bliss and glory of the Father. 
In Hebrew, btl| (great) is used to indicate a state of pros- 
perity, a happy state, Gen. 2G: 13. 

It is obvious here, that these two texts (both uttered on the 
lie occasion), cannot be consistently explained, without the 
supposition of two natures ; the one, which is in a suffering 
and depressed state, and the other that which was in a state 
of glory with the Father before the world was, i. e. from eter- 
nity. I cannot accede to the opinion of those interpreters, 



ICO TEXTS BSXJED ON BY UNITARIAN [LETT. IV. 

who Suppose thai the glory spokrn of is only that which the 

Father had decreed from eternity that Christ should hare, in 
consequence of the promulgation of the gospel i»v him; for 

the glory Spoken of is not one that results from what is to 
• lone it is a glory which Christ had with the Father (ftQog 
999 hut inn) before the world was. On this passage the com- 
mentary of Kninoel may he consulted, who has defended this 
expedition, as it seems to me, in a manner entirely unanswer- 
able. 

After all, it can be only in consequence of the peculiar 
union of the Logos with Jesus, that his return to the Father 
(so far as the LoffOe can he said to return) is here spoken of; 
and only in reference to his humiliation (iavtOP r/.tveoat. tav- 
tOf itaaeiraxse), that his return to glory can be prayed for. 
A thousand questions can easily be raised, and as many diffi- 
culties suggested ; but they all spring from interpreting the 
language literally, and not in such a way as the nature of the 
case requires. 

Mark 13: 32 offers serious difficulties. " Of that day and 
hour knoweth no man ; no, not the angels which are in heav- 
en, neither the Son, but the Father/ 1 The day and hour are, 
according to some, the clay of judgment ; but, as I apprehend 
(from comparing the context), the day of vengeance upon 
the Jews is meant. To solve the dilliculty presented, some 
have objected to the reading ovde 6 vtog (neither the Son) ; 
but for this objection there are no adequate authorities. Oth- 
er.-, with Hilary (de Trinitate 0.) say, that not to know means 
not to publish or declare ; Ea Deficit, qUJB aut in tempore non 
sunt conlitenda, aut non agnoscuntur ad meritum." There 
is no doubt that the verb ynojaxco may sometimes have the 
sense of making known ; but a derivative of the verb el'dco is 
used here, which does not bear such a sense, nor will the ten- 
or of the verse admit it. To say : " That day and hour no 
man mak<th known, neither the angels, nor the Son, but the 
Father," would be the same as saying that the Father does 
m<ik<> it known, lint where has he revealed it? After all, 
what more real dilliculty presents itself in this case, than in 






LETT. IV. j M IV I MTAK1.W 1C1 

that when ud to have int in wi$dotH t Luke 

52. [f he did possess a nature really human, that nature 

apable, of coarse, of pn improvement and 

knowledge. As it appears to me, there is bo proper method 
of solving the difficulty, as the te*t Btands, hut by appropri- 
ating the expression, a- in other like cases, to that nature of 
which the assertion made can he predicated 
John 17: :;, "And this is Bfe eternal, that they might 

know thee the only true Cod, and JeSUS Christ whom thou 

hast Bent." The trut God here seems to me plainly not to 

i or contrasted with, Christ, but, B8 everywhere 

in case this expression is used, opposed to idols. In the 
verse preceding, Christ says : " Thou hast given me the pow- 
er over allocs//, that thou mightest bestow eternal life upon 
all whom thou hast given me," i. e. both Gentiles and Jews, 
lie proceeds : This is eternal life, that they might know thee 
the only true God, i. e. the only God and true God, and Je- 
sus Christ whom thou hast sent." Now what is there here, 
different from that which we preach and inculcate every Sab- 
bath ? Do we not teach that there is one only living and 
true God? And that he sent his Son to die for sinners? 
And do we not insist, that eternal life is connected with the 
reception of these truths? I really see no more difficulty 
here, than in the text : " God so loved the world, that he 
sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him 
should not perish but have everlasting life." Besides, it is 
Christ himself, who is addressing the Father, that utters the 
words in question. Could he otherwise express the senti- 
ment, that the same Father is the only true God, in distinc- 
tion from all false or pretended gods ? That he should join 
with this his own name, inasmuch as he was the only media- 
tor and Saviour, was necessary in order to the full expression 
of the great gospel truth which he uttered. 

1 Cor. 8: 4 — G, " As concerning, therefore, the eating of 
those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know 
that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none 

14* 



1C2 TEXTS RELIED OX BY UNIT A KI AN [LETT. IV. 

other god btrf niic. For tliough there be that are called gods, 
whether in heaven or earth, (as there be gods many, and lords 
many), yet to us there is hut one God, the Father, of whom 
are all things, and we in him ; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, 
by whom arc all things, and we by him." I have i v- 

eral verses, tor the sake of introducing the context. From 
this it is plain, that the one God, the Father, is not Ik 
placed in opposition to Christ, but to the lords many in<<! 
ffods many of the heathen. If you insist that the one God is 
hi opposition to Christ, or excludes him, then, as Christ is 
the one Lord {tu y.i'nio^), you must insi-t that he is so named 
in opposition to the Lordship (xvQtorijg) of the Father, and 
of course that this denies the Lordship of creation in respect 
to the same Father. It is plain, however, at least according 
to my apprehension, that God and Lord here are mere syn- 
onymes. (See v. 5, where Xtyoutrot Qeot is explained by 
O^o! ,To/./.o/and y.rnioi nolloi). Nothing is plainer than that 
uvQtog is a common title of God, both in the Old Testament 
and the New. 

Moreover, that which is predicated of the one God and one 
Lord here is the same, viz. that they are the author and pre- 
server of all things. The use of the preposition did, in cases 
of this nature, has already been the subject of remark. 

The nature of the whole case shows, that the apostle places 
the object of the Christian's worship, in opposition or in con- 
tract with, the heathen or idol gods. What then is that ob- 
ject? The one God the Father, and the one Lord Jesus 
Christ, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things. 
The passage evidently holds out Christ to be the object of 
the Christian's worship, in the same manner as the Father is. 
And as the apostle seems to me simply to assert the eimfjrof God 
in opposition to idols, 1 am not able to perceive how the divinity 
of the Saviour is impeached by it, any more than the lordship 
of the Father is impeached bj making Christ the one Lord. 
To embrace my view of the whole passage in a brief para- 
phrase : k Idols are nothing; there is but one God. There 



. r. iv.j TKXT< RELIED OM BT DOTTJ 



indeed among the heathen such ai are catted godi 

. who COmpri» • :m<l lordi many ; y<[ ( lni — 

thins have only our object of worship — one <i<»d and Lord. 1 
lm 10: . " [f he called them gods, onto whom tin 

I of ( rod came, and 1 1 1 « * Scripture cannot be broken ; say 

ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and Beni into 

tin- world: Thou Ua-plirnmst. because I -aid that I am the 

Christ had previously said i u I and my Fa- 

At this the Jews took up to stone him, 

log a man, he made himself ( rod." It is perfectly 

ir, that the Jews frequently understood* or at least pi 

Led to understand, hie affinnations respecting himself, 

amountim: to assertions that he was truly divine. In this case, 

however, it is said that Jesns repelled such an interpretation 

of his words, by an explanation which shows that he applied 
to himself the word God only in an inferior sense. 

I am not satisfied that the passage requires this exegesis. 
The reply of Jesus is evidently argnmcntnm ad lunninem. " If 
the Old Testament, [the divine authority of which you admit], 
calls them gods to whom the word of God was addressed (Ps. 
82: 6), i. e. if it calls the magistrates of the Jews gods, is it not 
proper that I, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into 
the world, should call myself the Son of Godf y That is, if 
you are not offended, when your Scriptures bestow the title of 
Eloldm upon civil magistrates merely, much less is there rea- 
son to be angry, when I, whom God hath distinguished from 
all others and made preeminent above them, and sent into the 
world on the designs of mercy, should call myself the Son of 
God. V. 37, ' If I prove not the truth of these assertions by 
miracles ; then disbelieve them.' V. 38, ' But if I do, believe 
the proof exhibited by my miracles, that the Father is in me 
and I in himJ Now wherein did Jesus explain away anything 
which he had before said ? The expression that the Father 
is in him and he in the Father, I do not understand as here 

letting his divine nature in a direct manner. It is a phrase, 
which is used to express the idea that any one is conjunctissi- 
mus cum Deo, i. e. most nearly and affectionatelg united with 



1C-4 TEXTS KU.IKl) DM BY UNITARIANS. [LETT. IV. 

God (See 1 John 1: 16, where it is applied to Christians; 
also vs. 12, 18.) 

It appears plain to me, that Jesus has not asserted anything, 
in the whole paBBage, which could not be predicated of him- 
self as sustaining the office of Messiah, lie had called God 
his Father; and as the Jews supposed, or seem to have sup- 
posed, in a peculiar and appropriate sense. But it did not 
follow, that by using this term he meant here to assert his di- 
vine nature. Bather the contrary appears : " Say ye of him 
whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world" i. e. 
say ye of the Son of God, etc. ? Jesus does not undertake, 
then, to answer the question here whether he is truly divine, 
but simply to vindicate the language he had used against the 
accusations of the Jews. ' If your magistrates are called Flo- 
him, is it presumption in me to call myself the Son of GodV 
This leaves the question unagitated as to his divine nature, 
while it vindicates the language which he had used against 
the malignant aspersions of the Jews, by an argument drawn 
from their own Scriptures. 

It shows indeed, that the phrase " Son of God" does not 
appropriately and necessarily designate Christ as divine, but 
only as the incarnate mediator — as him whom the Father hath 
sanctified and sent into the icorld. As Mediator, as Messiah, 
Christ was sent into the world; as Son he filled, and acted in, 
a subordinate capacity; how then can his being Son in such 
a sense, prove him to be divine? Son of God indeed, by 
usage, has become B kind of proper name; and in this way 
it is D8ed to designate occasionally a distinction in the God- 
head which I believe to be eternal. In this manner we very 
commonly use the term now ; and in this way the apostles 
sometimes use it ; see Ileb. 1: 1 — 3. But this is only an oc- 
COiional and secondary use of it in the Scriptures. Commonly 
and appropriately it designates the incarnate Messiah, as bom 
in a manner supernatural (Luke 1: 3.3, comp. 3: 38) ; as the 
rial object of divine love, (Matt 17: 5. Col. 1: 13. John 
S : 85) ; and as exhibiting the best and highest resemblance 
of the Father, (Col. 1: 15. Ileb. 1: 3. John 1: M. 10: 38. 



. r. iv.] MODI OF I 166 

11: 10). Would I ideal in new, I can- 

not help thinking they might be able to understand each other 
ind to i' more conclusively. 

I have thus summarily touched upon the principal t< 
which are employed by Unitarians, to oppose the doctrii 
which III: q endeavouring to defend. Whether I have 

1 the laws • in doing this; and whether yon 

or I depart moat from them, in explaining the texts which 
o [«. be at variance with the opinions that we defend ; must 
1 in another letter. 

I must observe, however, before I dose this letter which 
concludes what I have at present to advance in regard to the 
support of your views from the Scriptures, that I do not omit 
making observations on some other doctrines of your Sermon, 
ede to all which you profess to believe, or ap- 
prove of the mode in which you have represented the senti- 
ments of Trinitarians. The manner in which you accuse us 
of treating the moral attributes of God ; your appropriating to 
yourself and your party the exclusive belief in all that is ami- 
able and excellent in the Deity, (pp. 15 — 18) ; your assertion, 
that the reproaches which you are obliged to encounter, are 
occasioned chiefly by your zeal to vindicate the dishonoured 
goodness and rectitude of God (p. 18) ; the manner in which 
you state our views of the atonement, and appropriate to your 
party only many important things in which we all agree, 
(pp. 18 — 21) ; the appropriating also to Unitarians only many 
views respecting the love of God, rational zeal in religion, 
and the benevolent virtues ; and the intimations that we are 
opposed to all that is excellent, and rational, and worthy of 
belief; all this and more of the like kind, I must be permit- 
ted to say, do not seem to me well adapted to conciliate, nor 
very consistent with your declaration (p. 24), when you say : 
" Charity, forbearance, a delight in the virtues of different 
sects, a backwardness to censure and condemn . . . are vir- 
tues . . . which we admire and recommend." But, my dear 
sir, I will not trust myself one moment on this ground. I am 
sure that a sober review of your discourse, in prospect of your 



1GG MODB Ol CONTROVERSY. [LETT. IV. 

■ •untability to God for the manner in which yen ha 

represented and treated bo large a portion of the ( ln-i-tian 

community in this country, (gome of whom at lead are accus- 
tomed to think and reason lor themselves, although they can- 
not agree with you) ; — a review after the heat of the occasion 

IS pasfl that prompted such representations, and induced you 
to place as in an attitude BO debasing and repulsive — will 
L r i\r you more acute sensations than anything which I can say- 
would inspire, or than I could even wish. I do not know but 
I may betray excitement, in my remarks. But if I have at- 
tempted to hold up you, or rnitarians, to ridicule; if 1 have 
misrepresented your sentiments ; if I have charged you with 
treating Jehovah as the heathens did Jupiter ; or endeavoured 
to frame my arguments so as to captivate and lead away the 
unwary and unthinking; or made any effort to use the arr/u- 
mmhtm ad invidiam ; or appealed to human authorities to de- 
cide the question between us ; or appealed to anything but the 
sober rules of exegesis ; then I desire to know it, and be hum- 
bled for it. I will not say that I have not transgressed in any 
of these particulars ; for wdio that knows the human heart 
does not know 7 that it is deceitful ? But I can say sincerely, I 
did not mean to transgress ; and that, with all my heart, I 
will thank the man, who in the spirit of Christian love will 
point out my errors, and show me wherein I have written in 
such a way as to endanger or render repulsive the cause which 
1 am advocating. That cause I believe to be just ; and I 
should regret to employ any devices, management, stratagem, 
or unfairness to defend it. What other real interest have we, 
but to know the truth ? And wdiat but simple, unimpassioned 
argument can lead us to know it? 

J retire, then, for the present, from the field of review which 
the remainder of your Sermon presents; for the pressure of 
my official duties is so great, that I am compelled to relin- 
quish the idea, which I at first entertained, of pursuing the 
ligation of the topics presented by that remainder. 






LETT. V.] MOl IW 



L i: T T E R V. 

\m> Di lb Sim, 
In p, l i of your Sermon, you inform as of 1 1 1 « - method In 
which you explain those pas which seem to B| 

Ike divine nature of Christ The paragraph fa ale follows: 

u l am aware, thai these remarks will be met i»y two or tin 
texts, in which Chris! i< called God, and l>y a class of pat 
not very numerous, in which divine properti said to be 

ibed to him. To these we ofler one plain answer. We 
that it is one of tin? most established and ohvious principles 

of criticism, that language is to be explained according to the 

known properties of the subject to which it is applied. Every 
man knows, that the same words convey very different id< 
when used in relation to different beings. Thus, Solomon built 
the temple in a different manner from the architect whom he 
employed; and God repents differently from man. Now, we 
maintain, that the known properties and circumstances of Christ. 
bis birth, Bufferings, and death, his constant habit of speaking of 
God as a distinct being from himself, his praying to God, his 
ascribing to God all his power and offices, these acknowledged 
properties of Christ, we say, oblige us to interpret the compara- 
tively few passages, which are thought to make him the supreme 
God, in a manner consistent with bis distinct and inferior na- 
ture. It is our duty to explain such texts, by the rule which we 
apply to other texts, in which human beings are called gods, 
and are said to be partakers of the divine nature, to possess all 
things, and to be filled with all God's fulness. These latter pas- 
lo not hesitate.' to modify, and restrain, and turn from 
the most ohvious sense, because this sense is opposed to the 
known properties of the beings to whom they relate; and we 
maintain, that we adhere to the same principle, and use no 
greater latitude, in explaining, as we do, the passages which 
are thought to support the Godhead of Christ." 

I must hesitate however to adopt this principle, without 
examining its nature and tendency. On the supposition that 



1G8 [let* v. 

you admit the Bible to be ■ revelation from G 

aver, permit me to ask, whether it U the ohj. i revela- 

tion to disclose truths which are wot known^ or are insuffi- 
ciently established ; or whether it is the object of a revela- 
tion, to disclose truths already known and established? If 

you answer: The latter; tl. ir answer denies of co 

that it i< a revelation. What the book of nature fully ex- 
hibits, the Scriptures do not recall. Is there then anything 
in the Scriptures which the book of nature does not ex- 
hibit? li you concede this, then I ask: How are we, on 
your ground, to obtain any notion of that thing which was 
unknown before it was revealed t E. g. the resurrectii 
the body is revealed. Now it is a known property of the 
human body to corrupt and perish. Shall I construe a pas- 
sage of Scripture then in such a maimer, as to contradict this 
known property? If not, then I can never suppose the 
resurrection of the body to be revealed. I however do in- 
terpret the Scriptures so as to contradict this apparently 
known property of the human body — following the obvious 
lion of the sacred writers, and not allowing myself to 
force a constructive meaning upon their language. Yet, if I 
understand you, I am at liberty, " to restrain, and modify, 
and turn the words from their most obvious sense," because 
this sense is opposed to the known properties of the matter 
of which our bodies are composed. 

The case is just the same, in regard to any other fact or 
doctrine. What I know already of a thing, is, if you are 
correct, kk to modify, re-train, and turn from their obvious 
sense," the words which are employed in revealing it because 
We may suppose what is revealed to be at variance with 
some known doctrines or properties. Is there not need here 
of great caution? If the principle, in some obvious ca 
is to be allowed, (which 1 grant), yet is there not need of 
much more definite limitations of it than you make? 

According to this principle, moreover, the Scriptures may 

onstrued \rvy differently, by persons of different degrees 

of knowledge. One man knows the properties of things, lor 



!T. V.] -IS. 100 

i\ -t-ly than In- neighbour. 1 I 
that ir had i Jed may consist with known properties of 

things ; bul his neighbour, who lack- this knowledge, is un- 
able to perceive the consistency of revelation with what hd 
knows, and this, because his knowledge does no! qualify him 
to judge, or because what he thinks he knows he is really 
ignorant of. The same text in the Bible, therefore, may be 
is a consistent part of revelation, and i 
be other a< inconsistent The measure of a man's 
knowledge, therefore, cannot be a proper rule by which we 
may test the meaning of Scripture* 

But you will say : k I can never believe in the reality of a 

elation, which contradicts my reason.' I accede; on the 
supposition that reason is understood in a proper sense. And 
here i- the very place, where I find the greatest difficulty 
with your theory of interpretation. You do not carry your 
objections hack to the proper place. It* God manifest in the 

%h be an absurdity, a palpable contradiction — M an enor- 
mous tax upon human credulity," as you aver — then the 
claims of the book which asserts this, are no doubt to be dis- 
regarded. What is palpable contradiction, we certainly 
never can believe. 

But in determining what the Scriptures have taught, we 
have no right to say, that because any particular doctrine is 
repugnant to our views, therefore we will " modify, and re- 
strain, and turn from the obvious sense," the words in which 
it is conveyed. The rules of exegesis are not a mass of wax, 
which can be moulded at pleasure into any shape that we 
may fancy. We do as great violence to reason — to the first 
principles of all reasoning — when we reject these rules, as 
when we admit absurdities to be true. 

In case an obscure term is used, I acknowledge that clear 
pa- relating to the same subject are to be adduced to 

ascertain its meaning. If Christ had been -imply called 
God, I should allow that this term might be explained by its 
use as applied to inferior beings. But when the -acred 
writers themselves have explained the meaning which they 

15 



170 modi: Off BXB0BI [LETT. V. 

attach to it, by telling as that Christ is the God u 'fed 

ami govern* the world; who is omniscient and eternal ; who 
is the object of religious worship and prayer; who ii God 
over all or supreme God; (not to mention u the true God*" 

and the "great God") 5 there is no law of ex< no 

method of interpretation which can fritter away the meanii 
that is not absolute violence— a real infringement of the fun- 
damental principles of interpretation, an abandonment of the 

first principle- of our reason. It does appear to me, there- 
fore, that my only resort in such a case is, to reject the au- 
thority of Scripture, if I disbelieve the doctrine* To say 
that they do not mean to teach, what they most obviously 
have taught, I cannot, mttgt not. No book can be under- 
stood, no writer can be .interpreted at all, by such a rule of 
exegesis, without forcing upon him the opinions of his read- 
ers. My system of philosophy, we will say, differs from 
yours. What you view to be a palpable contradiction and 
absurdity, I view as rational and consistent This, we know, 
is not an uncommon fact. Jn reading a book, then, that re- 
spects the subject of our differing opinions, you hold yourself 
bound to construe it so as to save all that appears to you con- 
tradictory, or absurd : I interpret it just as its language ob- 
viously means, i. e. by the common laws of exegesis which 
do not depend on my philosophy. This book, then, may 
have two different meanings, according to us, in the same 
passage. Is this so? Can it be? Or rather, are not the 
laws of interpretation independent of you or me ? If not, 
how can the meaning of any writer be ever obtained? 

You and I differ, as to what John has taught in the first 
chapter of his gospel. I commence reading him, with the 
full conviction that I cannot determine a priori, in all respects, 
what the nature of God and Christ is ; and also with the 
belief, that John wrote what is a revelation from heaven. I 
read John and interpret him just as I do any other author, 
ancient or modern, i. e. l>y the general rules of exegesis mod- 
ified by the special circumstance- and dialect in which he 
wrote. I am as well satisfied that he meant to assert the 



V.] M«»Pi 01 I M 171 

truly divine nature of the Lo [am thai he ha< mad»- 

?ertion at all respecting liifii- I rceei\e this assertion* 
flier leclaring a fact which I ought to believe) and 

which, it' I admit his inspiration) I most believe* la the MUM 
manner I treat all other | . which reaped this subject. 

nic in this way to the conclusion, tliat Christ ifc truly di- 
vine : and that he haa a human and divine nature so united, 

(I undertake not to tell in what manner), that he -peaks of 
either nature as himself. The passages which seem to imply 
his inferiority to God, I find to be capable of explanation 
without doing violence to the language, by the obvious fact 

that he has two nature- united, which the sacred writers seem 
to me so plainly to inculcate. In this way I find one cou- 
nt whole. I save the laws of exegesis. I admit, indeed, 
on the authority of revelation, doctrines which natural re- 
ligion never taught ; but why should not a revelation teach 
ng which natural religion did not? 

Here then I take my stand. J abide by the si?nple decla- 
rations of the New Testament writers, interpreted by the com- 
mon laws of language. Such views as I take, seem to me 
to reconcile all the seeming discrepancies of description in 
regard to Christ, without doing violence to the language of 
any particular passage. I can believe, and do believe, that 
the sacred writers are consistent, without any explanation 
but such as the laws of interpretation admit and require. 

On the other hand ; when you read the first of John you 
say : ' The known properties of Christ must modify the de- 
scription/ How then are those properties known ? By the 
same writer, the same authority, the same revelation. But 
what can give to one part of John's book, any more credit than 
to the other part ? You will say, that you can understand 
better how Christ can be inferior to God, than how he can 
be divine. Granting that this might be the case — is a rev- 
elation merely to teach us things which are obvious ? May 
it not disclose those which are more difficult, and cannot be 
discovered by unassisted reason ? If the latter, how can 
you aver that Christ may not be revealed as a divine person ? 



172 MODE OF EXEGESIS. LETT. V.] 

To Bhow a priori that this is impossible, or absurd, is really 
out of the question. The religion of nature teaches nothing 
for or against this fact. The simple question then is: AVhat 
has John -aid? and not, What has your philosophy led you 
to regard as probable or improbable ? And I must be allow- 
ed to say again : If John has not taught us that Christ is truly 
divine, J am utterly unable, by the laws of exegesis, to make 
out that he has asserted anything in his whole gospel. 

If I believed then, as you do, that a Saviour with a human 
and divine nature is "an enormous tax on human creduli- 
ty," I should certainly reject the authority of John. To vio- 
late the laws of exegesis in order to save his credit, I could 
regard &fl nothing more than striving to keep up a fictitious 
belief in divine revelation. It is what I cannot do; and 
what no man ought to do. It would be impossible for me, 
with your views, to hesitate at all, about giving up entirely 
the old idea of the divine inspiration and authority of the 
sacred books. How can they be divine, if they teach palpa- 
ble absurdities? And that they do teach what you call 
palpable absurdities, I feel quite satisfied can be amply proved, 
from the simple application of the laws of interpretation that 
are established on an immovable basis. 

You have, however, undertaken to vindicate your method 
of construing the Scriptures, by intimating the necessity of 
interpreting several seemingly unlimited assertions in respect 
to Christians, in the same way as you interpret many in re- 
spect to Christ. M I\ecollect," you say, " the unqualified 
manner in which it is said of Christians, that they possess all 
things, know all things, and do all things.'' And again, in 
order to show how we may " modify and restrain and turn 
from the obvious sense," the passages that respect the divinity 
of Christ, you say : " It is our duty to explain such texts by 
the rule which we apply to other texts, in which human 
being> are called gods, and are said to be partakers of the di- 
vine nature, to know and possess all things, and to be filled 
with all Cod's fulness." 

I have already sufficiently examined the manner in which 



LETT. T.] OF BPBC1 VI. PASSAOl & 173 

the Bible calls men gods. There is, and can be, do mistake 
; for instead of attributing to them divine attributes, it 
alw;i tmpanies the appellations with such adjuncts as 

guard us against mistake. It does not call them Gad, and 
then add, that the same God ifl meant who is the creator of 
the univei - 

N ; the New Testament, (your sole statute book), 

anywhere call men CML A\' ill you produce the instance? 
That the appellation God, as applied to Christ, is bestowed 
under circumstances totally diverse from those in which it is 
applied to men in the Old Testament, is a fact too obvious to 
I further explanation. The Hebrew word z'n'^x (Elohim) 
had plainly a latitude more extensive, i. e. it w T as capable or 
a greater variety of use, than the Greek word Qao^. Can 
you produce from the Greek Scriptures, i. e. the New Tes- 
tament, an instance where 0toV is applied to any man what- 
ever ? 

In regard to the assertion, " that Christians are made par- 
takers of the divine nature," (2 Pet. 1: 4), a mistake about 
the meaning is scarcely possible : " Whereby [i. e. by the 
gospel] are given unto us," says the apostle, " exceeding 
great and precious promises, that by these ye might be par- 
takers of the divine nature' 1 But how ? He answers this 
question : u Having escaped the corruption that is in the 
world through lust." That is, by moral purification you will 
become assimilated to God, or partakers of that holy nature 
which he possesses. Does the context here afford any 
ground for mistake ? 

In 1 John 2: 20, Christians are said to have " an unction 
from the Holy One, and to know all things." In the preced- 
ing verse, the apostle had been describing apostates, who 
forsook the Christian cause because they were not sincerely 
attached to it. The case of real Christians, who have an 
unction from the Holy One, is different. They " know all 
things." And what means this ? The sequel explains it. 
" I have not written unto you," says he, " because ye know 
not the truth ; but because ye know it, and that no lie is of 

15* 



174 )\ 3 OF 8PB< LAX PAMAOl S. [LETT. V. 

the truth." To u know all thing-," then, plninlj m<an< here 
to know all that p< rtains to Christian doctrine and duty, so 

w re and not apoMatize from the truth as oth- 
had done. 

[a this however asserting (as you affirm in your Sermon) 

in " an unqualified manner, that Christians know all things?" 
In John 1 1: 26, the Holy Ghost is promised to the ;>: 

<// them all things, and to bring all things to their re- 
membrance," whatsoever Christ had said unto them. Again, 
John 1 6: 23, the k% Spirit of truth is to guide the disciples in- 
fo all truth /" and in 1 John 2: 27, the anointing which 
Christians have received, i- said to M teach them all things." 
In all the-. the context leaves no room to doubt, that 

u all things essential to Christian doctrine and practice'' is 
meant. No person, I presume, ever understood these pas- 
s as meaning, that the apostles or Christians should be 
endowed with omniscience. 

Yet in the other ease, where Christ is asserted to be God, 
the context is such, that the great body of Christians, in every 
age, have understood the sacred writers as asserting that he 
was truly divine. Is there no difference between the two 
cases? You make them indeed the same, in respect to the 
principle of interpretation. To my mind, the difference is 
this, viz. that in the one case, the adjuncts prevent you from 
ascribing omniscience to Christians, while in the other, they 
lead you necessarily to ascribe divine properties to Christ, un- 
If08fl you kt turn their meaning from the obvious sense" so far 
to transgress the fundamental maxims of interpreting lan- 
guage. 

In 1 Cor. 8: 22, the apostle says to the Corinthian churches : 
u All things are yours ;" and the same apostle speaks of him- 
self (2 Cor. 6: 10), as " having nothing, and yet possessing all 
thing*." In the first case, the context adds : " Whether Paul, 
or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or thi] 
present, or things to come — all are yours ; and j 
Christ's;" i.e. simply, (when the phraseology is con-trued as 
elsewhere), let no man glory in this or that particular teacher, 



\ . l \ w. PA83A01 175 



for all rs In-long to the church, and all tiling in the 

I future world will minister to the good of the church* 
In other words: WTiy should you covei exclusive individual 
possessions, when you have mi interest in the whole! B - 
train, therefore, from the Bpiril of jealousy and contention. 
Tin- >eeond c merely antithesis. The apostle evi- 

lly ass- ompare the context), thai although be has 

litt! d of this world's good] yet be pc a far more 

:\i and satisfactory good, in comparison of which all 

nothing. In the Bam( we every day Bpeakofa 

man's all. im aning that which he most desires and loves best 
I can no more sec here, than in the Other instances already 
discussed, why you should affirm that Christians arc said "in 
an imquaKfied manner to possess all things." 

One expression still remains. In Eph. 3: 19, the apostle 
exhibits his fervent wishes, that the Christians at Ephesus 
might M be Idled with all the fulness of God." By comparing 
tin- -it »n. as applied to Christ in Col. 1: 19. 2: 9, with 

John 1: 11, 16, and Eph. 1: 23, it appears evident, that by the 
fulness of God is meant the abundant gifts and graces, which 
were bestowed on Christ, and through him upon his disciples ; 
John 1: 16. Eph. 1: 23. When Paul prays, therefore, that 
the church at Ephesus might be "filled with the fulness of 
1," he prays simply, that they might be abundantly re- 
plenished with the gifts and graces peculiar to the Christian 
religion. But how does such an affirmation concern the prin- 
ciple of exegesis in question ? 

I am well satisfied, that the course of reasoning in which 
you have embarked, and the principles by which you explain 
away the divinity of the Saviour, must eventually lead most 
men who approve them to the conclusion, that the Bible is 
not of divine origin, and does not oblige us to belief or obe- 
dience. J do not aver, that they will certainly lead you there. 
The remains of your former education and belief may still 
serve to guard you against the bolder conclusions of some of 
your brethren, who have not been placed under instruction 
such as you enjoyed in early life. You have more serious views 



176 HODBfl OF EVADING TnE RESULTS [LETT. V. 

of the importance of religion, than man y, perhaps than mo 

of those who speculate "with you. Consistency^ too, will atlbnl 
strong inducement nol to give op the divine authority of the 
iptures. Tef many of your younger brethren liave no in- 
consistency to Pear, by adopting inch views. Deeming what 
you have publicly taught them to be true, viz. that it is "no 
crime to believe with Mr. Bebhain," who boldly and plainly 
declares that the Scriptures are not the ward of God : feeling 
the inconsistency, (as I am certain some of them will and do 
feel it), of violating the fundamental rules of interpretation, 
in order to make the apostles .-peak, as in their apprehension 
they ought to speak : and unable to reconcile what the apos- 
tle- Bay with their own views ; they will throw oft* the re- 
straints which the old ideas of the inspiration and infallibility 
of the Scriptures impose upon them, and receive them simply 
on the ground, on which they place any other writings of a 
moral and religious nature. 

I make no pn -tensions to uncommon foresight, in regard to 
this subject I certainly do not say these things with invidi- 
ous designs, and for the sake of kindling the fire of conten- 
tion. Aery far from it. On the contrary ; I believe that the 
pafftlel now contending here, will have no quiet, until this 
ground be openly taken on the part of those who side with 
you. For myself, I view it as incomparably more desirable, 
in every point of view, that the authority of the Scripture 
should at once be renounced, and its claims to divine inspira- 
tion rejected, than that such rules of exegesis should be in- 
troduced, as make the Scripture speak nolens volens whatever 
any party may desire. Avowed unbelief in the divine au- 
thority of the Scriptures can never continue long, as I would 
hope, in the present day of light and examination. Such a 
state of thing- may pass away, with the generation who are 
actors in it. Bat it is a more difficult matter to purge away 
the stain, which Christianity may contract by violated laws of 
interpretation ; because those who indulge in such a violation, 
profess to respect the Christian religion, and to acknowledge 
it- divine original. They may therefore obtain, and hold, for 



v.] U& 177 

influen r ihe maM of people, who arc 

1 to i xamine in a critical manner the nicer 
its of theology. If o its to the sentiments in qo 

tion lift ii[» the f warning) they may not be heard. They 

liable to the imputation of bigotry, or illiberality, or igno- 
rance. 1 > 1 1 1 w hen men p // cast off their respect to the 
am] Scriptures, the case beoomei different, and 
the great body of plain and sober people frill revolt. 

hi making these observations on the nature and probable 
of your system of exegesis, which explains 
,y the Deity of Christ, I do not feel that I am building 
in the air to amuse my own imagination. My duties 
have necessitated me for Borne time past, to be conversant 
with the history of exegesis, as it has of late appeared in Ger- 
many ; a country which, in halt' a century, has produced more 
works on criticism and sacred literature than the world con- 
tains besides. About fifty* years since, Semler, Professor of 
Divinity at Halle, began to lecture and publish on the sub- 
ject of interpretation, in a manner that excited the attention 
of the whole German empire. The grand principle by which 
he explained away whatever he did not think proper to be- 
lieve, was that which has since been called accommodation. 
lie maintained that the apostles and the Saviour often ad- 
mitted representations and doctrines into their instructions, 
which were calculated merely for the purpose of persuading 
the Jews, by being accommodated to their prejudices ; but 
which were not intended to be a general directory of senti- 
ment. In this way, whatever was inconsistent with his own 
views he was led to call accommodation ; and thus he at once 
expunged it in effect from the list of Christian doctrines. 

Sender's original genius and great learning soon gave cur- 
rency to his views in Germany, where a system of theology 
and exegesis had prevailed, which in not a few respects needed 
reformation. Since his time a host of writers, (many of them 
possessed of distinguished talents and most extensive erudi- 

* Some seventy years n< >w\ at the period of issuing the present edition, 



178 MODES 01 i:v.\iiiN<; im: RESULTS [LETT. V, 

tion), lia\c arisen, who hare examined, explained, modified, 
ami defended, the doctrine of* accom m odation. A more re- 
eent shape of exegesis in ( rermany is, the solution of all the 
miraculous facts related in the Bible, by considerations which 
arc affirmed to be drawn from the idiom and ignorance of an- 
tiquity in general, and in particular of the sacred writers 
themselves. Thus, with Eichhorn, the account of the en 
tion and fall of man. is merely a poetical and philosophical 
speculation of some ingenious person, on the origin of the 
world and of evil. (Urgeschicbte, j>a— im.) So, in regard to 
the offering up of Isaac by Abraham, he says: u The God- 
head could not have required of Abraham so horrible a 
crime ; and there can he no justification, palliation, or I 
for this pretended command of the Divinity." He then ex- 
plains it in his own way : 'Abraham dreamed that he must 
oiler up fattM ; and according to the superstition of the times, 
lie regarded it as a divine admonition. He prepared to exe- 
cute the mandate, which his dream had conveyed to him. A 
lucky accident, (probably the rustling of a ram who was en- 
tangled in the bushes), hindered it ; and this, according to 
ancient notions, was the voice of the divinity.' (Bibliothek, 
Band I. s. 45, etc.) 

The same writer represents the history of the Mosaic leg- 
islation, at mount Sinai, in a curious manner. Moses as- 
cended the top of Sinai, and built a fire there, [how he found 
wood on this barren rock, or raised it up to the top, Eichhorn 
does not tell us], which was consecrated to the worship of 
God, and before which he prayed. Here an unexpected and 
tremendous thunder storm o c curred. He seized the occasion, 
in order to proclaim the law.-, which he had composed in his 
retirement, as the statutes of Jehovah; thus leading the peo- 
ple to believe that Jehovah had conversed with him. Not 
that he was a deceiver; but he really believed that the oc- 
currence of such a thunderstorm was a sufficient proof of the 
tact, that Jehovah had spoken to him, or .-auctioned the work 

in which he had been engaged. (Bibliothek, Band 1. Theil 

1. s. 70, etc.). The prophecies of the Old Testament are, 



V.] OF SIMl'I 

according to him, \pn — . d with all tin* fire 

and elegance i f p * the future proept rity end ■ future 

deli isfa nation, beten, Biblioth., Kin- 
lei t., passim.) 

In like main of theology at 

ErL tells us, in to the miracle of l <lk- 

thal " tO walk 00 • • IS H0l tO Man-i 

!•* drean< 
but to walk through the wav< 

and then to swim." | Pref. to edit. o£ Braesti Enst Ini 
p, 12). So in regard to the miracle of the loaves and fid 

itt. 14: 15), rs, that 'Jesus probaUj distributed some 

loaves and fishes which he had, to those who wnv around 
him, and thus i mple, others among the mul- 

titude who had provisions, to distribute then in like manner.' 
(p. 1C.) 

Thiess, in his commentary on Acts, explains the miracu- 
lous effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost ( Acts ii.), 
in the following manner: u It is not uncommon," lays he, 
"in those countries, for a violent gust of wind to strike only 
a particular spot or house. Such a commonly accom- 

panied by the electric fluid; and the sparks of thi al- 

tered all around. These float about the chamber, become ap- 
parent, and light upon the disciples* They kindle into en- 
thusiasm at this: and believe the promise of their master is 
now to be performed. This enthusiasm spectators ible 

to witness ; and instead of preaching as before in Hebrew, 
each one uses his own native tongue to proclaim his feelings." 

I have not followed the words of Thiess through the 
whole, but have given the substance of his views in my two 
last sentences. Such was the outpouring of the Spirit ; and 
such the gift of tongues. 

The same Ti omm. on Chap, iii.) represents the 
miraculous cure, by Peter, of the man who was lame from 
his birth, in i liar way. u This man," says he, 
" was lame only according to report. He never walked any ; 
and so the people believed that he could not walk Pe- 



180 MODES OF EVADING Mil. RESULTS [LETT. T. 

teraod John however, being moi nous, th d him. 

4 In the name of the ACessiah,' said they, - stand up.' The word 
Muriah had a magical powers He stood up. Now one saw 

that he could walk. To prevent the compassion of men from 
being turned into rage, [at his deceit], lie betook himself to 
the moel sagacious party, and connected himself with the 
apostles." 

The case of Ananias' falling down dead is thus represented 
by the same writer: "Ananias fell down terrified; hut prob- 
ably he was carried out and buried while still alive." 

Heinrichs, however, who produces this Comment of Thi 
relates another mode of explaining the occurrence in question, 
VIZ. thai Peter st<il>l>e<l Ananias; "which/ 1 says Heinrichs, 
"does not at all disagree with the vehement and easily exas- 
perated temper of Peter." (Nov. Test Koppianum, Vol. iii. 
Tartic. ii. pp. 355 — 357, etc.) 

You may smile, my dear Sir, or shudder at these explana- 
tions ; but I am entirely unable to see how they imply a 
greater liberty than you take with John 1: 1. Rom. 9: 5, and 
many other passages. 

Numerous systems of Ilermeneutica, i. e. the Art of Inter- 
pretation, have been written and published in Germany, on 
this plan. Meyer, in a very laboured system of Hermeneuti- 
ca of the Old Testament, in two large octavos, has a body of 
rules, by which everything miraculous is to be explained 
away, lie concedes that there is the same objection to ad- 
mitting any one miracle, as to admitting all. lie therefore 
rejects the whole. So Bauer, in his llermeneutiea ; and a 
multitude of others. 

In the course of the discussions which these principles have 
excited in Germany, the question about Christ's divinity has 
been almost entirely forgotten. When the contest first began, 
this point among others was warmly contested. But the 
fundamental questions, whether the Scriptures are divinely 
inspired, and whether the doctrine of accommodation can be 
used in all its latitude in interpreting them, soon took the 
place of this. Accommodation has been sifted, attacked, de- 



LETT. V.] OF SIM I'll 1\1 UF.SIS. 1^1 

fea<]« I. explained, moderated, modi Rod, itself cu dated; 

so that at iasl it is marly driven from the ground, and the 
plain and simple rule- ol grammatical interpretation are tri- 
umphant among the best part of the ( rerman critics. 

In the mean time, they have mm returned to the principl 
of their Lutheran Symbols. Verj tar from it. While they 

allow that John, and Peter, Hid Pfeul, did believe and teaeh 

thi doctrine ol Christ's divinity and of the atonement, they 
hold them-' nder no obligation to receive them. De 

AVette, who has recently published a System of Theology 

and b Professor of the same at the University of Berlin,* 

maintains that the Pentateuch was composed abont the time 
of the captivity; that the Jewish ritual was of gradual forma- 
tion, accessions being made to it by superstition ; and that the 
book of Chronicles, (which is filled with scraps and inconsis- 
tencies), was foisted into the Canon by some of the priest- 
hood who wished to exalt their own order. His Jicitrage, 
which contained these sentiments, was published before the 
death of Griesbach, and came out recommended by him ; 
who says: ' If you object to the young literary adventurer 
[De Wetteji that he has endeavoured to bring Judaism into 
disrepute, my answer is : This is no more than Paul himself 
has laboiued to do.' (Pref. to Beitrage.) 

In his book De morte Christl expi'atoria, (on the Atone- 
ment of Christ), he represents Christ as disappointed that 
the Jews w T ould not hearken to him as a moral teacher sim- 
ply ; which was the first character he assumed. Christ then 
assumed the character of a prophet, and asserted his divine 
mission, in order that the Jews might be induced to listen to 
him. Finding that they would not do this, and that they 
were determined to destroy him, in order not to lose the 
whole object of his mission, and to convert necessity into an 

* This was the tact when the former editions of this work were pub- 
lished. But many years since be was dismissed from his place there, 
on the ground of a supposed jjoliticol offence ; and since this, he has been 
at Basle in Switzerland. 

16 



182 GERMAN WRITERS. [LETT. V. 

occasion of giving himself credit, lie gave out that bis death 
itaelf would be expiatory* 

Y< t 1).' Wette holds a most exalted rank in (i.nnanv. I 

doubt whether Germany can beast of an oriental scholar* or 

a literary man, who has more admirers than De Wette. I 
senilis, Professor at Halle, has spoken of him, in a letter re- 
emtlv received, in the bigbeal terms; and selects and recom- 
mends him, among all the literati, critics, and orientalists, of 
Germany, as most deserving of special acquaintance and 
confidence. 

Both of these gentlemen are Professors of Divinity in 
Universities ; both men of great genius, and profound erudi- 
tion ; men, too, who stand at the head perhaps of oriental 
literature in the German empire, not to say in the whole 
world. 

What shall we say, now, of De Wette ? That he is not a 
Christian ? Surely he would look with disdain on any man 
who should think of such an accusation, and tax him with 
the highest degree of illiberally and superstition. 

Perhaps you will say: 'What is all this to us? We do 
not avow or defend such opinions/ True, I answer ; at pres- 
ent you do not avow or defend them. A short time since they 
did not. But as soon as their numbers increased, so that they 
began to be fearless of consequences, and when their antago- 
nists urged the laws of exegesis upon them, they abandoned 
the ground of defending the divine authenticity of the Bible 
at once. A few years since, the state of the question in ( i< r- 
many, in many respects, was similar to what it now is here. 
At present, most of the German critics, (rejecting accoimnoda- 
tion and casting off all ideas of the divine origin of the Scrip- 
tures), are disputing with great zeal the questions: Whether 
a miracle is possible ? Whether God and nature are one 
and the same thing? Whether the Jews ever expected any 
Messiah? Some time ago many of their critics maintained 
that no Messiah was predicted in the Old Testament ; but 
now they question even whether the Jews had any expect a- 



IT. V.] 1 \-. 11-11 « Ull KHS. 183 

tion of one. Whether Christ actually rose from the dead^ 
was long ago disputed; and bow it would sirm, thai they 
have gone on so far beyond this, as to have com 
would be inclined to think , nearly to the eod of questions on 
theology. It is difficult to say what is to tome next. 

Ii moderate acquaintance with German 

ra and critics, (a thing which is fast coming in), to in- 
duce young men io L r <> with them, who set out with your max- 
im, thai M to believe with Mr, Belsham is no crime. n No 

man can rca<l these writers, without finding a great deal of 
llent matter in them, well arranged, and of real utility. 
I venture to add, that no man can read them, and ever after 
take up Priestley, Belsham, Carpenter, Yates, Lindsey, or any 
other of the recent English Unitarian writers, as critics, but 
with disgust Cappe is the only one whom I have seen, that 
appears to have studied diligently his Bible. He was evi- 
dently a man of thought, and a lover of biblical study. But 
the incomparably greater acquisitions of the German critics, 
in every department of study, spread a charm over their writ- 
ings for the lover of discussion aud literature, that is not of- 
ten found in productions of this nature. I must add, that 
much as I differ in sentiment from them, and fundamentally 
subversive of Christianity as I believe their views to be, I am 
under great obligations to them for the instructions they have 
given me ; and specially for convincing me, that we need 
nothing more than the simple rules of exegesis, and a candid 
and believing mind, to see in the Scriptures, with overpower- 
ing evidence, all the substantial and important doctrines 
which have commonly been denominated orthodox. 

Such has been the impression on me, from reading Ger- 
man writers. And with such impressions, I can never re- 
gret the time that I have spent in studying them. Abler 
advocates than they for the fashionable philosophy, which is 
endeavouring to explain away the book of God, I do not 
expect to find. 

Si Pcrgama riextr.i 
Defendi possent, etiam hie defensa fuisscnt. 



184 USE OF GRRMAN BOOKS. [LETT. V. 

Able however as they are, my mind returns from the study 
of them with an impression more deep, radical, and satisfac- 
tory than ever before, that the great doctrines of the gospel, 
commonly denominated evangelical or orthodox, are the doc- 
trines of the Scriptures, and are the truth of God. My views 
as to the exegesis of particular texts, in some cases, have 
been changed by the study of philology and interpretation. 
I should not rely for the proof of doctrines now, on some texts 
which I once thought contained such proof. But my impres- 
sions of the real truth and importance of evangelical doc- 
trines, I can truly say, are greatly strengthened. 

Before you pronounce sentence upon the German exposi- 
tors and critics to whom I have referred above, I trust you 
will give them a hearing. I can hardly think it probable, 
that with the maxims in regard to reasoning about the Scrip- 
tures which you defend, you should not, at last, go full length 
with the most liberal of them all. The difference between 
their sentiments and yours, is immeasurably less than the dif- 
ference between your sentiments now, and those which you 
avowed when you first became a preacher of the gospel. A 
mind capable of reasoning and thinking in such a manner as 
yours, must necessarily, as it seems to me, come to the same 
conclusions with Eichhorn, and Paulus, and Henke, and Eck- 
ermann, and Herder, and other distinguished men of the new 
German school, when it begins to reason with such maxims 
as those which you adopt 

You may be ready, perhaps, to express your surprise, that 
I should commend the study of such writers as those whom I 
have quoted. I am well aware, indeed, that the serious mind 
revolts at the glaring impiety of such comments as those 
which I have produced. But after all, if a man were to judge 
and condemn these very writers by a few selections of this 
nature, it would be hasty. On points which are not concern- 
ed with the special doctrines of Christianity ; in illustrating 
critical and literary history, philology, natural history, and 
grammatical exegesis — in a word, as to everything literary 
or scientifical that pertains to the Bible ; who can enter into 



LETT. V.] USE OF GERMAN BOOKS. 185 

competition with recent German writers ? But it should be 
understood, that there are writers on these subjects, in Ger- 
many, who are what is denominated orthodox, as well as 
those of a different character which I have just mentioned. 
The lover of acute, thorough-going, radical discussion, will 
lose much, if he does not cultivate an acquaintance with both 
these classes of writers. 

I know, indeed, that you are an advocate for unlimited re- 
search. For myself, I have long practised upon this princi- 
ple. And I cannot but think the cautious fears of many of 
those with whom I agree in sentiment, in respect to the limits 
of study, though honourable to the spirit of piety which they 
cherish, and indicative of real interest and concern for the 
prosperity of the church, are not well founded. The funda- 
mental principle of Protestantism is, that the Bible is the suf- 
ficient and only rule of faith and practice. To know what 
the Bible teaches, then, is the great object of all religious 
knowledge. To understand this, (as to acquire everything 
else), study and diligence are necessary. Men are not in- 
spired now, as the apostles and primitive Christians were, to 
understand all truth. Men are imperfect, and have imper- 
fect knowledge. No one sect, party, or body of men, can 
claim absolute perfection of knowledge or virtue. And as a 
great many points of inquiry, (interesting and important ones 
too), may be managed by men of sobriety, in the use of only 
their natural intellect and their resources of learning, the 
man who loves the book of God, and desires the most exten- 
sive acquaintance with it which he can possibly make, will not 
neglect their works, nor any other source of knowledge with- 
in his power. It was a noble maxim of a heathen : Fas est 
ab hoste doceri ; i. e. we may receive instruction from an 
enemy. Christians too often forget this, and permit antipathy 
to particular sentiments to exclude them from all the profit, 
which might be derived from a more enlarged acquaintance 
with the writings of opponents. Believing as I do, that 
many who are arrayed against the sentiments that I espouse, 
are not destitute of sense, or of learning, and are not to be 

16* 



186 USE OF GERMAN BOOKS. [LETT. V. 

despised, I am inclined always to see how they vindicate 
their cause. If I am not convinced by their arguments, I 
at least become better satisfied with my own, and more able to 
defend them in consequence of such an investigation. But 
if I could not practise upon the noble maxim, fas est ab hoste 
doceri, I would at least apply another one to vindicate the 
study of the German writers, and justify myself for even re- 
commending it in proper cases. I would say, (as was said 
in a different connection and for a different object : Egyptii 
sunt, spoliemus ; They are Egyptians, let us take their spoils. 
Shall I not accept the good which they proffer me, and prof- 
fer me in a more scientific manner, and in a better digested 
and more lucid form than I can elsewhere find ? Without 
hesitation I answer : Yes. 

I cannot help viewing the subject in another light. Every 
student in theology, certainly every Christian minister, ought 
to be established in the truth and able to " convince gain- 
sayers." How can he do this, if he does not know what 
these gainsayers allege ? Is he to engage in war against the 
foes of truth, without knowing the weapons by which his 
enemies are to assail him ? It is a mistaken system of edu- 
cation, indeed, which teaches him thus. It is a mistaken 
arrangement, which thrusts out a young man upon the church, 
unacquainted with the nature of its enemies' assaults, and 
liable of course to become the victim of the first powerful 
attack that is made upon him. Without any doubt, private 
Christians had better have little or nothing to do with all 
such grounds of dispute ; but it is a shame for a minister of 
the gospel, who has the opportunity, not to seize upon every 
advantage in his power, to render himself as able as possible 
to defend the cause which he has espoused. 

I may venture to add a still better authority, in order to 
confirm these reasonings. An inspired apostle has directed 
Christians to prove all things, and to hold fast that which is 
good. How does he comply with the spirit of this direction, 
who never examines any views that differ from his own, but 
settles down with the full conviction that he is right, and that 



LETT. V.] USE OF GERMAN BOOKS. 187 

all who differ from him are wrong? As no man now is in- 
spired, and no man therefore is free from some error, does it 
not become those who arc to be " set for the defence of the 
truth," to examine as far as it may be in their power the 
dissentient views of others, who have called themselves 
Christians, and who lay claim to an extensive understanding 
of the word of God? Such an examination will enlarge 
their views, and render them more able to oppose error and 
to defend truth. 

Such are my reasons for pursuing the study of German 
writers, and for commending the study of them to others. 
Truth has nothing to fear from examination. If the senti- 
ments that I espouse will not stand the test of investigation, 
then I will abandon them. I never shall willingly embrace 
any sentiments, except on such a condition. But in respect 
to the study of the more liberal (so called) German writers, 
I fear no injury from it, in the end, to the sentiments denom- 
inated evangelical. Exegesis has come, by discussion among 
them, to a solid and permanent science. That the scriptural 
writers taught substantially what we believe to be orthodoxy, 
is now conceded by their most able expositors. 

There is another point of view, in which the subject may 
be regarded. The person who reads their works, will see 
what the spirit of doubt and unbelief can do in respect to 
the Book of God, and where it will carry the men who en- 
tertain it. It is indeed a most affecting and awful lesson. 
But the exhibition of it has merely begun among us. The 
progress of the sentiments which you defend, fully illustrates 
the nature of its advancements. A short time since, almost all 
the Unitarians of New England were simply Arians. Now, 
there are scarcely any of the younger preachers, who have 
not outstripped you and become simple Humanitarians. 
Such was the case in Germany, The divinity of Christ was 
early assailed ; inspiration was next doubted and impugned; 
and this is already begun here. Natural religion next comes 
in order ; and the simple question between the parties here 



188 ULTIMATUM OF UNITARIANISM. [LETT. V. 

must soon be, whether natural or revealed religion is our 
guide and our hope. 

For myself, it is my real conviction that the sooner mat- 
ters come to this issue the better. The parties will then un- 
derstand each other ; and (what is more) the public will then 
understand the subject of dispute. I cannot think that they 
do at present. It is but very recently, that explicit declara- 
tions have been made in print, by you and your friends. 
And though with such views as I possess, I cannot help feel- 
ing the most sincere regret that such sentiments should be 
propagated, yet I can never do otherwise than applaud that 
ingenuousness, which openly avows sentiments that are more 
privately inculcated. I shall be ready to confess my appre- 
hensions are quite erroneous, if the lapse of a few year3 
more does not produce the undisguised avowal of the Ger- 
man divinity, in all its latitude.* I anticipate this, because 
I believe that the laws of exegesis, when thoroughly under- 
stood and applied without any party bias, will necessarily 
lead men to believe that the apostles inculcated, for substance, 
those doctrines which are now called orthodox. And as 
there probably will be not a few, who will reject these doc- 
trines, my apprehension is, that to take the German ground 
will be deemed both ingenuous and expedient. 

Believing however as I now do, while my convictions re- 
main, I must act agreeably to them. I hope I shall never 
be guilty of exercising an exclusive or persecuting spirit. 
But while my present views last, I cannot look with indif- 
ference on the great contest, which is pending in this part 
of our country. I must regard the opinions which you 
have avowed in your sermon, to he fundamentally subversive 
of what appear to me to be the peculiarities of the Christian 
system. If the doctrine of Christ's divinity and humanity be 
not true, nor the doctrine of the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, 
and of pardon by it ; if human nature be not of itself entirely 



* See postscript, at the end of this Letter. 



LETT. V.] ULTIMATUM OP UNITARIANISM. 1 89 

destitute of holiness that may fit men for heaven, and does 
not need special regenerating and sanctifying grace ; then I 
know not what there is in the Christian system that very 
much concerns our duty or our interest, which is not taught 
by the principles of natural religion ; nor what there is, for 
which it is our duty to contend. The great question at pre- 
sent, between you and me, is : What does the Bible teach in 
relation to the subjects proposed ? For our answer to this 
question, you and I stand accountable to the Judge of quick 
and dead ; and as ministers of his gospel, and interpreters of 
his word, we are placed under an awful responsibility. If 
either of us violate the reason which God has given us, in 
our inquiries ; or are led by partial views, by passion, by 
prejudice, by thirst for popularity with our friends, or a fear 
of reproach from those whom we are obliged to consider as 
opponents ; Christ will require from us an account of our 
conduct. When I think on this, and look back and ask my- 
self, whether I have conducted this whole dispute with a 
view to my account, and in the fear of God ; I cannot but 
feel solicitude, lest through the deceitfulness of the human 
heart, something may have escaped me which may prove 
prejudicial, in some way or other, to the promotion of real 
truth. If you see this, my dear Sir, tell me where and what 
it is. We have no real interest, but to know, believe, and 
obey the truth. And supposing the truth to be what it now 
appears to my mind to be, I cannot believe otherwise than 
that you are endeavouring to inculcate principles radically 
subversive of the gospel of Christ. Will you do me the jus- 
tice to believe, that I may have honestly formed such an 
opinion, without taking my faith from creeds, or grounding it 
on tradition, and without the spirit that would establish an 
Inquisition, or lord it over the consciences of men, or treat 
you with disrespect ? 

In a word ; with those who have the convictions that I 
possess of the nature and importance of the gospel system, it 
can never admit of a question, whether they are to make all the 



190 ARE THE ORTHODOX LETT. V.] 

opposition in their power, (provided it be done in the spirit of 
Christian candour and benevolence), to the prevalence of 
sentiments like yours. I cannot but view the question be- 
tween us as amounting to this : Whether we shall retain 
Christianity, or reject all but the name ? If I am wrong, 
may the Lord forgive me, and grant me better views. If you 
are wrong, my heart's desire and prayer to God is, that the 
same blessing may be bestowed on you. 

Allowing that I, and those with whom I act, are sincere 
in our belief, you yourself would say, that we should be just- 
ly chargeable with the greatest inconsistency, did we not feel 
strong desires to resist the innovations that are attempted 
upon many important doctrines of our theology. Permit me 
to add, that real charity may sometimes attribute strong feel- 
ings, and a deep interest on this subject, to ardent benevo- 
lence towards those whom we think to be in a dangerous con- 
dition, rather than to party zeal, blind credulity, and igno- 
rance, or an assuming and injurious spirit. 

And now, to bring these already protracted letters to a 
close, you will permit me respectfully and seriously to solicit, 
that you would look back and review the Sermon which has 
occasioned these remarks. Have you represented the senti- 
ments of the great body of Christians in this country correct- 
ly ? Have you produced the arguments on which they rely ? 
Have you treated them with respect, with gentleness, with 
tenderness ? Has your simple aim been to reason with them, 
to convince them, and not to hold them up in such an atti- 
tude as to excite disgust, or scorn and derision ? Whatever 
your aim may have been, the fact is, that you have awaken- 
ed, in all those who differ from you, a deep sensation of an 
intentional injury on your part to their feelings, of contumely, 
and of misrepresentation of their views. Look then with a 
Christian eye on the unhappy and distracted state of the 
churches in this land, the glory of all lands. When will our 
contentions cease ? When shall we bring a united offering 
to our common Lord, if men, like you, who stand in eminent 



LETT. V.] FAIRLY TREATED ? 191 

and responsible stations, treat those whom they profess to 
own as Christian brethren in such a manner, and strive to 
degrade and render them contemptible ? 

My dear Sir, I do think these are things, which, when you 
enter your closet to lift up your soul to God, you are bound 
by sacred obligations to consider. I do not bring these as 
charges against you, in order to wound your feelings, I speak 
of the impressions which your Discourse, (universally so far 
as I know), has excited in the bosoms of those who espouse 
the sentiments which you condemn. If their impressions are 
without reason, the wrong may indeed fall upon them. But 
in reviewing the subjects that have already come under my 
notice, there appears more reason for those impressions, than 
a lover of Christian meekness and benevolence can approve. 
When the hours of excitement and the stimulus of party feel- 
ing are gone by, you and I shall stand at the bar of that 
divine Saviour, who searches the hearts and tries the reins 
of men. There we shall certainly know, whether it will be 
our condemnation that we have loved him and honoured him 
more than he can claim. There we shall know, whether we 
need his atoning blood ; whether we are permitted to treat 
with contumely those who place their hopes of salvation in 
it, and to declare to them that the God, whom the great body 
of the faithful in every age have worshipped, is a malignant 
and detestable being. My dear Sir, this is indeed no trifling 
matter. We are immortal beings. We must live forever ; 
and our eternal destiny is in the hands of that Redeemer, 
about whose dignity and glory we are contending. 

When I think on this, I cannot but feel, that the question 
between us is of deep and radical interest, as it respects our 
eternal salvation. If the God whom I am bound to adore, 
has not only revealed himself in the book of nature, but has 
clearly disclosed his glory in the gospel of Christ, and I mis- 
take after all a revelation so clear ; or induced by party feel- 
ing, or erroneous philosophy, reject the testimony which he 
has given ; the mistake must be tremendous in its conse- 



192 POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. V. 

quences ; the rejection will justly incur the divine displeas- 
sure. With all this however fully before me, I do not hesi- 
tate ; I cannot doubt respecting it. When I behold the glory 
of the Saviour, as revealed in the gospel, I am constrained 
to cry out with the believing apostle : My Lord and my God ! 
And when my departing spirit shall quit these mortal scenes, 
and wing its way to the world unknown, with my latest 
breath I desire to pray, as the expiring martyr did : LORD 
JESUS, RECEIVE MY SPIRIT ! 



POSTSCRIPT. 

In republishing this little volume, after so many years have 
elapsed, it is not without some hesitation, that I have admitted 
into this edition the preceding account of the state of theology 
in Germany, which was drawn up about the year 1820 when 
these Letters were first published. It is no desire that I have, to 
show that my anticipations at that period have been fully real- 
ized, which has induced me again to repeat this part of my origi- 
nal publication. The simple account of the matter is, that I 
have permitted the sketch in question to remain in this edition, 
in order that it may assist the reader in forming a judgment, at 
the present time, as to what fruits he is to expect from such be- 
ginnings as those in Germany, and to admonish him to take good 
heed that he listen very attentively to the monition contained in the 
old proverb : Obsta principiis. The fruits, in our own country, of 
beginnings like to those in Germany during the years 1770 — 1800, 
are now plain and evident to all attentive observers. Had Dr. 
Channing lived until the present time, it is difficult to say what 
position he would have taken. But we know what position many 
of his friends and followers have taken. Mr. Norton's attack on 
the Old Testament comes nothing short of Ultra-neology. Sub- 
stantially the same is true of Prof. Palfrey's Lectures on the Penta- 
teuch. Unitarian Periodicals are filled with the like sentiments. 
Dr. Noyes, in translations of the Old Testament, has inserted 
notices respecting the several books translated, which are of the 
like tenor ; and it is generally understood, that in the Theologi- 
cal School at Cambridge, with which he is connected, there is, 



LETT. V.] POSTSCRIPT. 193 

at least in their own circle, an open and explicit renunciation of 
the divine inspiration and authority of the Old Testament Scrip- 
tures. But above all, the Rev. Theodore Parker, in his hook Of 
Religion, and other publications, has fully and openly taken the 
ultimate ground to which the principles in question naturally 
and even necessarily lead, in the mind of a bold and consistent 
man. I do honour to his frankness and openness, in being will- 
ing to appear what in reality he is, a doubter not only of all in- 
spiration, but of all that is miraculous or supernatural. He re- 
gards reason and the moral sense in man, as his highest source 
of revelation ; and by these all else is to be tried and adjudged. 
His reason bids him to reject all miracles; to regard the Old 
Testament and the New as full of errors, contradictions, and ab- 
surdities ; to regard Christ himself only as an unusually able 
and excellent man, and teacher of morality, i.e. unusual for that 
period ; while he was in fact not only peccable, but has even 
made some mistakes, (for which Mr. Parker undertakes to apolo- 
gize). His apostles and followers, moreover, were not only fal- 
lible men, but they have shown, in their writings, not a little of 
superstition, as well as a great many mistakes. In a word, (as 
the phrase is), he has gone for the whole. The humble Chris- 
tian, who is accustomed to look to his God and Saviour and Bi- 
ble with reverential awe, is startled at this ; and no wonder. 
But after all, I must think better of such a frank and open avowal 
of sentiment, than of any concealed course of conduct ; and I can- 
not but deem it an honourable trait of character in Mr. Parker. 
In my view, he has greatly the advantage, in respect to consis- 
tency and frankness and courage, over those Unitarians who are 
at variance with him, and who still cherish principles that must, 
at least if logic has any part to act, inevitably end in bringing 
them to the same views as those of Mr. Parker. He is willing 
to take the responsibility of his real sentiments, and to come be- 
fore the public on this ground ; # they decline the hazard of do- 

* On reading this to a friend, whose locality enables him better to 
know Mr. Parker's pastoral development than myself, he suggested that 
it is now generally understood, that Mr. Parker is constantly in the habit 
of using orthodox terms in his prayers and preaching, even to such a de- 
gree that many of his undistinguishing hearers deny his heterodoxy. If 
this be so, I must recall all that I have said above, about his straightfor- 
wardness and explicitness. But I cannot help thinking that there is 
some mistake about this matter, and that he would not degrade himself 
by practising any imposition of this nature. 

17 



194 r< Pl\ [LETT. V. 

inL r this, and t - - « - 1 that it ifl risking too much for themselves and 
their cause, to !>»• bo openly explicit They have even gone so 
lar as \ irtuallj to excommunicate Mr. Parker, and some of them 
actually begin to call him an infidel Some Creed, then, they 
would seem secretly to have, by which Mr. Parker is actually 
tried, it' not actually amenable to it, and in their view condemned. 
I would hope, therefore, thai the orthodox will no longer be re- 
proached for having a Creed, or for adhering to it. And what 
now is Mr. Parker's heresy? It is no] for me to enter into the dis- 
pute between him with his adherents, and those who begin to 
call themselves evangelical (!?) Unitarians. l Inter tales ctrtan- 
tfs. quis dyudicabit V Geneva and Boston Bhow us, (after all the 
Btroog professions of Unitarians in favour of unlimited liberty of 
religious opinion, and after loudly and often asserting the crimi- 
pality of making any man responsible for his religious views), 
that only an opportunity for the safe exercise of power is want- 
ing, to convert the mass of liberal Christians into propagandists 
of their party views, by appeals to force, i. e. to the powei of the 
magistracy, or to the more dreaded power of virtual excommu- 
nication. These are not the first lessons of this kind which are 
recorded on the pages of faithful history. They probably are not 
the last, which even the present generation a\ il 1 be called to 

learn. It lies upon the very face of all this matter, at Least such is 

my serious apprehension, that nothing hut power is wanting, 
among some of the leading zealous Unitarians, to exclude the 
orthodox not only from Cambridge University, (which has already 

SO long and so effectually been done), hut to exclude them from 
all active and intluenti.il participation in affairs of church, state, 
Civil office, and education, so tar as tin 1 government has the con- 
trol of an) oi" these matters. 

There are men, indeed, and I would hope that they are not few, 

in the Unitarian party, who would not intentionally do such 
things. Bui 1 am compelled to believe, that the leaders of the 

dominant party would at once go lull length and breadth in all 
matters over which they had control, if they did not fear a reac- 
tion. In the mean time, the Trinitarians are, as vet, by far the 
greater majority ^\' the State; and it' such tattles are to be 

fought, I am greatly mistaken if they may not he relied on as 
ready to take their place, in the ranks of those who are obliged 
to do battle iii their own defence. That this latter party (if I 
must so name them) are on the increase, is plain enough, so far 
I can discern, to every man whose ('yes are really open. 
That Unitarianism, divided against itself, and contending with 



IT. V.] 'STSCRirT. lO." 

tperiry in this than with Trinitarians, is 

lik«'l\ t<> !••• rather on the wane, ia somewhat probable. 1 think 
ad w HI Bcarcelj be denii d. 

>le of Boston and its viclnit] in general, • ri 
denth I I shorn supporting and propagating I Unitarian 

timents than their fathers had Ifanj one Bhould replj and 
thai tlh< is because thej have less zeal for religion in any 
l>e than their fathers had ; I do n<>t feel authorized to deny 
the truth of this allegation. 1 must also say, that in mj appre- 
hension, oneofthe genuine fruits of Unitarianfsm. A re- 
on, the prominent feature of which is N«»r to believe, ran 
never deeply interest any community, for anj preat length of 
lime. The human soul, made sooner or later deeply t«> feel its 
. ond wants, and woes, pants lor something more than a 
not j- religion to rest upon, and will have it it' it be at- 
tainable. 

In Germany, Bince the first edition of these Letters was pub- 
lished, the work of boasted philosophy and reason has been 
!i, until it seems at last to have reached its w plus ultra. 
First came Seraler and Eich horn's accommodation scheme. 
Next followed Paulus and others with the plan of explaining 

everything by mere natural causes, allowing at the Mime time a 
Spice of superstition and iirnoranee in the writers of the Scrip- 
tures. Then came De Wette and his friends, with honest maxims 
of interpretation, but renouncing all idea of inspiration in the Bi- 
ble, and maintaining that it abounds in mistakes and errors. Next 
came Strauss, w ith his scheme of mere moral romance. The Jesus 
of the Gospels i< altogether a personage of romance, an exhibition 
and Symbol of singular piety and virtue, as conceived of by the 
mind of the romancers. The numberless discrepancies and errors 
of the writers of the New Testament show, as this party aver, 
that the hook is no authentic account either of facts or of doc- 
trines. Last of all comes Bruno Bauer, with the downright 
charge of fraud and imposition on the part of the evangelists and 
apostles. What step lies beyond this, it is difficult to sec. 

Philosophy, however, has rather outstripped even Bauer him- 
self. God, (in the view of what is now called the philosophy l>y 
way of eminence), is not a personal conscious being, lie is only 
the unknown, unthinking, unfeeling amma mundi. and is indebted 
for his ptrsofwdity and his consciousness to m<,\. Not only is it 
true that " we an Qod and GodlS ?re," hut we are altogether the 
most conspicuous and important part of the Godhead, inasmuch 
as he has not consciousness at all without us. And as to sin — 



10G POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. V. 

ho* can <»'<»d sin against himself? The deeeutated maxim (it 
the part) i> : "If the world were not world, God would sal he 
God." 

ThiM tndi (shall I say ?] this recent leason. I cannot call it tin- 
first leason, nor tin* only one. Bui is it at an end ' For ue soar 
starvelings of this western world, as to the richer feasts of plu- 
loeophy, it might seem thai this is as far ae men can go. \\w\ ao. 
The German mind is capable of still further advances; audi 
predict that ten years will sec Hegelism melting away, and the 

market Supplied nv it I i ware of a HOW pattern. 

But enough. A false prophet J was not, as it seems from the 
present state of/acte, w hen I penned those remarks in ray Letters, 
twenty-six years ago, to n Inch the present postscript hae relation. 

lint I take to myself no great credit tor sagacity, in having writ- 
ten them. The truth is, that these things are everywhere so 
connected on the pages of ecclesiastical history, that one must 

be a dull reader not to know, that certain cau>«s will produce 
certain effects, in respect to a great Variety of matters. liven 
more than I predicted has taken place; and more is yet to come. 

The vantage ground which Mr, Parker has, in respect to his 
supposed frankness and sincerity, bids fair, perhaps, to strengthen 
him from the ranks of bis more timid and shrinking brethren. 

Beyond Mr, Parker's position, we in this country, as I am in- 
clined to think, cannot well jro. It needs u German mind and 
education to do this. Rut when the mass of the Unitarian party 
sliall be led to occupy Ins ground, (which can hardly fell to take 

place), we shall then know where we are; and it" we must take 
the ti«'|«l of contest, we shall know at least what fashion of ar- 
mour we are to cope with, who our opponents are, and what 

kind of defensive or assailing weapons may he expedient on our 
part 



Since completing my preparations for the present edition of 

these Letters, originally addressed to Dr. Channing, a friend has 

put into my hinds a nrw work, which, as he informs me, is 
very popular among the Unitarians, and is circulated, even in 
remoter parts of our country, with no little zeal and assiduity. 
From a very natural curiosity, and from the interest which I feel 

in the subject, I have run my eye through the pages of this work ; 
and it might argue SOme Want of comity in me, if 1 should p 
it without at least a brief notice. 

I must confess, that when m\ e\ e met, on the title page, the 



li n\ v.] P08 rs( Kii'i. 107 

namr ofthe author, which openl) proclaimed thai nJemaU bad 
ventured into the thornj path of theological controversy, I * 
filled with a variet) of conflicting emotions. An efctraordmarj 
nan, 1 thought, she must b •• n spec! or other, (bus 

i«» venture, clad in masculine armour, upon tilt and tournament, 
i t?H<l where none I >t it those trained to the use of arms are 
it to appear. 1: the first time, within the compass of 

my reading, that I had ever met with such an occurrence, It* 
the author of Ecclesiastes had lived until the present time, would 
he i;<»t have had occasion to review his bow ancient (if not an- 
tiquated) adage: There is nothing new under the sun? 

Hut it is one thing to wornh r that a lady-combatant should 

t- the lists, and another thing to meet her in contest, and 

disarm her, or convince her that retreat is her safest course. 

For myself, I haw always been accustomed to think, that a man 

lid not contend with a woman, at any rate before the public 

. without coming off second best, let his cause be ever so good 

in itself. There is such a general sympathy for a female under 

li circumstances, that if her antagonist should get the victory 

in COmbat, he must do it at the expense, at least in part, of his 

d name as to chivalry and courtesy. And who would like to 
he reckoned among those that deserve a censure of this sort? 
And yet, (for J must speak of serious matters in a graver man- 

. when ladies think it meet to take upon them the costume 
and the armour of" the other s«\. and present themselves on the 
arena for combat, 1 am not sure that it is the duty of every man 
to give up what In 1 deems a good cause, rather than to tarnish 
the lustre of his chivalry a little. If I ken Mv*. Dana aright, she 
would deem it quite a piece of neglect, on my part, not to 
meet her on the new ground that she has taken, just as 1 would 
meet one who had been trained for combat She would he far 
from taking it amiss, if I should feel that there is as much need 
of putting forth the best of my strength, in order to maintain 
my ground, as there 1 would he in case the attack had been made 
by more experienced polemics. 
I am heartily sorry, that the heroine before us is undergoing 

!i a martyrdom as she everywhere. 1 complains o£ "Tin 1 days 
of proscription, 9 ' »yt Bhe, u of slander, insult, and neglect, have 
by no means passed away. Cold greetings, averted looks, long 
and intimate friendships sundered in a moment, tell a mournful 
tale in respect to the toleration rtatty exercised in this country, 
so proud of its civil and religious liberty, towards those who 
have conscientiously changed their opinions f Introd. p. iii. 

17* 



108 POSTS4 MPT. [LETT. Y. 

Sbe then goes on to speak of a injurious suspicions," of ** direct 
charges which would almost break tin* hear! of the sufferer, 
if be did not fed himself above their reach," and die like. 
This last circumstance is well thrown in; for that she feels 
herself above the reach of all her Trinitarian friends, lies upon 
the face of her whole hook, from beginning to end, and is in- 
deed one of its most prominent characteristics. That a hid)/ 
should be subjected to " proscription, slander, insult, and n< 
Jed," was indeed, at fust \iew, somewhat adapted to excite com- 
miseration in ever) hreast not hardened against the emotions of 
chivalry and courtesy. J>ut while my commiseration was be- 

ginning to he somewhat excited by reading such an account of 

persecutors 1 deeds, and the hree/e of compassion be-all to 

spring tip and watt along my little barque which had spread 

Bail to catch its influence, 1 Was taken, as the seamen say, "all 
aback," after making hut a short run. The lady has found for 
herself, without the aid of sympathizers, an adequate remedy, 
as it would seem, lor all her woes. In the very next paragraph 
she tells us the secret of it: "When I look around me, and ob- 
serve 4 bow the great majority of mankind are blindly following 
the lead of others, how few there are who think for themseh' 
bow few are willing to test their religious opinions b\ compar- 
ing them with other systems of faith, by bringing them all "to 
the law and to the testimony" of Cod's inspired word . . . -when 
these things meet my view, though I may be distressed at the 
exhibition of intolerance, 1 ought not, perhaps, to be surprised 
at the spirit which is manifested." p. iv. 

It is indeed a most comforting sensation, to feel one's self to 
be M faithful found among the faithless." The great majority are 
"blindly [the Italics are my own] following tin 1 lead of other- 
Whom thee are those others following, who lead the majorit 
We cannot escape tin- conclusion, that they must be "blind 
leaders of the blind." At any rate Mrs. D. would fain put them 
both in the ditch, if they should fail to get there by virtue of 
their ow ii wandej inns. 

The modesty and delicacy of these imputations (Ml the g 

mass of Christians in our country, from a young woman who 

makes her appearance in the costume of the other sex, is not 

for me to descant upon. These are matters to be jilt, rather 

than talked about. Bu1 however this may be, the gale of com- 
panion that indicated a favourable approach to the harbour of 

sympathy, was dissipated by this adverse blast; and 1 soon 
brought myself to a state of great composure, in regard to tin' 



LETT. V.] POSTSCRIPT. 

martyrdom of this singularly independent woman, who, it* wo 
are to credit her own account, ia almost the onlj one in all the 
ranks of such a- have professed to be orthodox, thai dares t<> 
venture on a course of free and independent thought and opinion. 
The whole work is somewhat strongly marked with tin- char- 
acteristics developed in the Introduction. Never did lady-knight 
before meet with so many and such ungallant and unmerciful 
adversaries, However, not at all daunted, in right good earnest 

she docs them battle. Still, there arc limes, when, as it would 

i). she rather overrates the bloodthirstinesa of her opponent- : 

lor when, as I am inclined to suppose, they mean at most only 

to commit some petty offence, such as Pope has held up to long 
remembrance in his Rape of the Lock, she seems to feci, that in 
the true Turkish style they mean to cut oil' the head rather than 
the lock. 

All this, which is spread over the book in great profusion, is 
quite intelligible. This lady is the only candid and independent 
investigator and thinker, in all the circle where she formerly 
moved. Nor is this all. Her sympathies, her convictions, her 
wrongs, her prospects, hei hopes, her comforts — these united 
form the central nodus about which all the smaller planets 
move — or, as she thinks, ought to move. The best opinion I 
have been able to form of this whole affair is, that it began, and 
has thus far continued — I do not say, will end — in sentimentality. 
A spirit, kindred to that of music and song, is its substratum; 
and the same taste which leads to devotion in a high degree to 
these, leads on to the exquisite and the sentimental, on every oc- 
casion where these can be displayed* 

With all becoming deference to the assurances of this lady, 
that she never consulted Unitarians, or read any of their books, 
before she was already a convert to their doctrines, I have still 
some difficulties. How comes she, all at once, to have travelled 
over such a widely extended field of reading, the moment she 
ins to correspond with her friends? Her quotations and 
references would seem to betray years of hard study, pursued 
in all directions. For myself, I have been obliged to plod my 
way slowly along, and even to reach a " viginti annorum lucu- 
brationes," before I could venture on reference to such a widely 
extended circle of reading. I can form no conception, there- 
fore, of a young woman, more attentive, if report speaks truly, 
to accomplishments than to grave studies, traversing such a field 
in a few weeks or months, with more than Jack the Giant-killer's 
speed. It is a phenomenon. But it is not an incomprehensible 



200 POSTSCRIPT, [LETT. V. 

one. 'Others have laboured, and she has entered Into their la- 
bours. 1 

•But what of all this'-' I hear her and her friends exclaim. 
What is this to the purpose of refuting her book? Nothing at 
all 1 confl ss, as to one meaning which this question may have; 
but as to another meaning that some may give it, it is not wan- 
dering far from the main point I might reply, with some show 

aSOri, that all this avails just as much to the refutation Of 

her hook, as her complaints of persecution and parade of senti- 
mentalitj Contribute to the making of it. and to the commend- 
ing of it to the notice of sentimental ladies, and to the exquisites 

of the other sex. She has evidently COtinted much on this; and 

- it strikes me, have hel new friends reckoned, x% ho have 

encourftged her to publish it. And in fact, I am m\ self doubt- 
ful, whether this will not prove to be the most taking feature of 
the hook. If so, it is not amiss to submit this feature fairly to 
inspection. This is the sum and substance of what I nave to 
say. in respect to ihe point now before us. 

For the rest, I have little indeed to say of the book in general. 
I have gone through the whole of it, Appendix and all, without 
finding one new idea, or one trace of not being led, (after all the 
professions of independent thinking), by others who had travelled 

the same road before. How could it be otherwise r Here is a 
lady, whose life seems to have been mainly devoted to other 

very different things, who enters the held of metaphysical, phi- 
lological, theological, scriptural, and patristical controversy, about 

the doctrine of the Trinity, What! Has she then been diving 
into all these depths, or ascendinir these lofty heights? Believe 

it who may; but f f.nd not a trace of anything like argument 
in her book, which has not been said many and many a time 
before; and equally often, as I believe, refuted. It would be 

mererj tktiagert actum to undertake a formal examination of her 

WOtk. I could wish to say no more than I have already said in 

the preceding pages, on scarcely a single text or topic. She 

58 - to be quite open to future conviction of error, if any 
one will adduce good arguments for this purpose. She doubt- 

i, gg means — good in her own estimation. 1 believe she may 

safely challenge the whole of "the lords of the creation " in 

to produce such arguments. As to any champion who 

enters the li>ts with her, I venture to predict that he will surely 

come off w ithout his gUtrd&n, 

It wire easj to point out a goodly number of slips and etrors 

in various statements, notwithstanding all the aid her new friends 



IT. V.] POSTSCRIPT. 20J 

have given her, (and this I trust is n<'t a little), if the panic were 
worth the bunting. I cannol think thai it ha But leal she 
ihould complain of a disposition to bear hard upon her, to per- 
ute, and t<> }»nt her down more l»\ sneering than by argu- 
ment ; and lesl Bhc should allege, that my assertions respecting 
this matter arc mere random shots, intended mainlj for effect, 
when in truth I was n<>t able to point "in anything of this na- 
ture in \\fv work : I am compelled to give Borne specimens. And 
thr\ are but mere specimens of a somewhat plentiful crop. 

Some actual or imaginary correspondent of our author had, 
it seems, quoted 1 Tim. 3: 16, ( u God manifest in the flesh") 

tins! her views. In reply she says: M Yon arc perhaps aware 

. . . that Griesbach, whose authority is universally acknowledged 
by Trinitarians as well as others, lias decided that tin; word 
God, in this passage, is not to be found in the best ancient man- 
uscripts. . . . lie expresses it: Great is the mystery of godliness; 
He who was manifest in the flesh, etc." She then goes on to 
cite from Sir Isaac Newton's famous (famous among Unitarians) 
History of two Corruptions of the Scriptures; the amount of 
which is, an assertion that 'all the churches for the first four or 
five hundred years, and all the ancient versions, and all the 
Greek and Latin writers, read : Which was manifested in the 
flesh, etc.' 

I say nothing of the singular appeal to Griesbach, as an au- 
thority deciding that the word God, in the passage in question, 
is not to he found in the best ancient Mss. A simple matter of 
fact, like the one before us, viz. Whether a Ms. reads 02 or 02 
[he who, or God), is one on which others can decide as well as 
Griesbach ; and Trinitarians are far enough from attributing to 
him such an authority in these matters, as Mrs. D. supposes. 
Then again the statement of Newton is almost quot voces tot er- 
rores. Instead of all antiquity agreeing to read which (o), but a 
single Ms. (the Cod. Claromont.) is even supposed to exhibit it; 
and it is nearly certain that this supposition has no good ground. 
As to the ancient versions, such as the Jtala, the Vulgate, the Pe- 
ghito Syriac, the Ethiopic, Armenian, Coptic, Sahidic, and Ara- 
bic of Erpenius, only the Latin versions (which read quod) are 
certain as to the reading; all the rest, on thorough examination, 
turn out to be altogether doubtful witnesses. In the Latin fa- 
thers, in accordance with the Vulgate, we find quod (which); but 
in the genuine Greek fit hers, not one can be found which ex- 
hibits it. So much for Sir Isaac's statement. 

Then, as to Griesbach's " og instead of Otog" he can appeal 



P09fS< i:ii [LETT. V. 

otil\ to Codd A. C. P, 0. 17. ;.;. Of these, the first, in cona 
quence of the faded ink, cannot be decided upon with anj cer- 
tainty. In resped to 0., I. e. the Codex Ephrendy Tischendorf 
in In- recent republication <>f it, states as a matter beyond all 

doubt, that B2 now stands in the Codex, i. e. Seog, God\ But 
he seems to think, (hat the line across the 0, and the line above, 
are from a later hand. Conjectural this must <>f course be. 
These are clear and certain marks, that the reading God now 
stands in the M<. All the evidences of a different reading are 
derived solely from the alleged paleness of the ink in th< 
marks. Weber, IVnide, and Parquoi [custoa of the Royal Libra- 
ry , all maintain tin 1 originality of 02 in the case in question. It 
seems to be incumbent on those \\ ho deny this, to show, in some 
way, how or why these alleged additions were made to the orij 

nal copy. The mere colour of the ink cannot decide a point of 
this nature. 

F. and G. are Mss. of the ninth or tenth centuries; 17. 

and 73. of the eleventh and twelfth. As to fusions, not one 
of all the ancient ones can be appealed to with any certainty to 
confirm Griesbach's reading. And as, to \\ir fathers, qui ( oc) oc- 
curs once or twice in the Latin lathers, hut never in any Greek 

one, in a direct quotation. Griesbach and Lachmann, moreover, 

are the only critical editors of any note, that have admitted this 
reading into the text. 

Ajs to the reading 02 [Oh,^, God), some time ago 171 Mss. of 
the Pauline epistles, among which are some of the oldest, were 
known to exhibit it. The number has recently been much in- 
creased. The Philoxenian Syriac, the Arabic Polyg., the Sla- 
vonic, and Georgian versions, all exhibit it. The Greek father-, 
Ignatius, Hippolytus, Dionysins Alex., Athanasius, Chrysostom, 
Gregory of Nys*a, Cyril <>f Alexandria, Theodoret, Euthaliua, 

(most of them certainly, all of them probably 1 , exhibit it. The 
evidence in favour of it is altogether predominant, and nearly 
overw helming. 

So much for Newton's Corruptions of Scripture ; and so much 
for what can be said by one, in a state of all but entire ignorance 
with regard to the true position of such a critical matter at the 

present period. Hut then — Newton had given an opinion that 
helped a little to remove obstacles in the way ofourauthu 
opinion; and the help of such a great name was very grateful. 
But if Sir I>aa<- had done nothing beyond writing his Two C<>r- 

nij;ii>,iis and his work on Prophecy, to emblazon his name, it 

would have needed, by this time, a larger magnifying glass than 






i.r ; HI 

be ii l in who! ; the firmament In- warn, 

Voltaire Bays, thai he wrote hu do Propkte the 

ill for ! 

In a // I '1 the 6 

Don. J' I- " lira. D bal '* tin* spirit of persecution 

1 ." I - 
I - . - • m cl - 1 had i i er 

[Hwed thai P urice | • iiall) beheaded 

lical jealous} and ei 
all« _ -t him an attempt to deliver tin- country to 

ds. T -i that could 1" - to be, thai 

rneveldt, among other things, pouring the Armi- 

i part\ : but all this - int, in order t<» render him 

odious to the high orthodox party. 1I< !, i our autfr 

opinion, thi< all goes to making out a charf (MhodoryJ 

ami helps t<> swell the catalogue of its enormit 

These ma] - of what those can do, who 

ddle with ti fact, that theydo noi und\ st 

\e apec men of criticism which our author repeats the thou- 
sandth time, after Socinus and others, the remarks on John & 
nay answer onr present purpose. Jesn- - 9 to the J« 

Hi, i. e. before Abraham was. I am. 
Our fair critic stoutly maintains, that ii should be translate 
"Before Abraham v ras, I am l - :" and she belabours in ean 
'• k'niL r James* trans for not - tim: here, when else* 

they had rendered fym tqu by I am he. And what if they 
had so done? Why then the n would have 

been, according to Wakefield and our critic: •• My mission 
settled and certain before the birth of Ahraham.*' But then, in 
the first place, what is there that was not equally settled and 
certain at the same period, in the view of the omniscient God? 
Secondly, what was the point in dispute between Jesus and the 
Jews? Was it in reaped to the time when his mis-inn was de- 
creed ? Not a word of this in the narrative of John. What 
then? Why the Jews had just said to . I i &: "Thou art not 
B «>ld, and bast thotl \hrahai - re- 

plies: • • r. kbraham n s, I am." In other words : !• 

I did exist before Abraham. Such is tin' d _ of the P 

tlfd, in the Mich a meaning the 

Pre* a John 14: 9. 15c 27. J< r. 1: .">. Pa 

00: % and Winer's V T Thirdly, the 

antitln - fiham was and low, renders it impossible 



204 rOSTSCRIFT. [LETT. V. 

t<> Bupply he after torn, without losing the \n 1k>1o point and aim of 
the assertion. To supply it, and interpret it as our critic, fol- 
low ing tht* suit of Socinus and Wakefield, does, necessai il\ bril 

us to this: 'Before Abraham's mission was decreed, mine \ 
decreed f which surely needs no further comment De Wette, 
who is the Rev. Theodore Parker's favourite Nader, and who, 

whatever else he may he, is a master critic of language, trans- 
lates and comments thus: " I am ; not 1 am it or he. . . . Thai 
Jisus ascribes prtBxistcflCt to himself is CtHatfi ; see John 1: 1. (I: 
62. 17: 5. . . . Not in a nominal sense, as the Socinians and Gro- 
tius understand it, so that merely the foreordi nation of Christ 
the .Messiah was the meaning of the phrase." Very justly might 

this well skilled critic say thus. The monstrosity of such an e.x- 
~is as Wakefield's, (I cannot say Mrs. D's.), stands out in high 
relict' to the eye of every scholar who lias gone beyond the ru- 
diments of Greek. 

Jiut I do not mean to review Mrs. TVs hook, and therefore 
must withhold my hand. I have only two or three remarks to 
make, and then I shall dismiss the matter. 

Mrs, I), has one Letter inscribed: An Overflow of Feeling; 
another, Mental Suffering ; and so, in one way and another, we 
are continually meeting with her sentimentalities. Her new 
friends and herself, it would seem, are overflowing with the 
milk of human kindness. 'The arms of their charity are stretch- 
ed out so wide, that Arians, Socinians, Arminians, Universalis 
and the like, may all find a place, and a somewhat warm em- 
brace therein. But how is it with the Orthodox, the Calvin ists, 
the bigots, the predestinarians, and the like ? Does this over- 
flow of charity, and good will, and gentle feeling, bring them 
within its reach and influence? Let us see: "I regard it [Cal- 
vinism] as I would some venomous serpent, from whose fangs 
I have narrowly escaped. Too long has it been coiling itself 
around my struggling spirit That its poisonous fangs have not 
reached my vitals, 1 oWe to that wonderful Providence of God 
which has protected me from harm, and at length, provided a 

way of escape. He has given me strength to struggle on, till, 

at length, 1 have thrown the monster from me. I bless God for 

my escape." — j>. 131. 

The musical world may perhaps reap some advantage from 
this: for they may naturally expect, that the next edition of the 
Harp will contain an additional and highly spirited Ti Deum 
lamtnmns, inspired and called forth b) such an important i 
zuq. More gentle seem to have been her struggles, against the 



v.] POSTSCRIPT, 

captivating add »f Unitarianism. What surprises one moat 

iiat the u venomous Calvinism" did nol sooner lake the bint, 

n the repulsive struggles of the lady against liim, and quit 
urging a suit which be could not fail u> sec was desjxTate. I 
surprised w» are, that I nitarianism, with ii is well-dressed per- 
son, an<l bland looks, and genteel demeanor, should win his 
to the lady's heart, and find her M nothing lealfe" 

In another place (p, 133), she says, that "God, I thank thee 

that 1 am not as ether men are !" is the u legitimate reauh of Cal- 
vinism;" that u all rigid Calvinists arc exceedingly exclusive in 
their creed, if not in their natural feelings;" and that she M has 

endured the tyranny of this faith too long not to dislike it now." 

rtly after she breaks forth into rapture: u I thank God that 

1 am free." [This looks, however, a little like thanking <;<,d that 
she is not as other men, i. e. the poor Calvinists, are, viz. slaves], 
But again : 4 * I breathe the air of religious liberty, and it revives 
my soul. I raise my unshackled hands in gratitude to Heaven, 
and sing aloud for joy." So! And yet it is generally believed, 
that she had been wont to sing somewhat in former days, and 
even aloud, during the period when the giant Calvinism held 
her immured in his iron castle. But then, the present song, as 
we must understand the matter, is still louder. And why not? 
" My eyes," exclaims she, " are now o|>ened to behold the truth, 
beauty, and symmetry of another faith." It may be so, I will 
not deny; but then, all is not gold which glistens to our view; 
and 1 have sometimes heard of * optics even so sharp, as to see 
what is not to be seen.' 

How is it now, that this same tender-hearted lady, who recoils 
from the ' venomous serpent,' and pronounces all to be slaves, 
who sympathize in sentiment with Calvin, zealously rebukes 
Calvin for merely saying that he detests the sentiments of those, 
who maintain that our free-will is such, in our natural condition, 
that we may prepare ourselves to receive the grace of God? p. 
11^. Pres. Edwards comes in, too, for a full share of her denun- 
ciations. 

But enough of this. It is all quite tolerable, compared with 
this lady's assertion in other places, that Unitarianism is unjustly 
charged with denying the atonement, regeneration, and the Holy 
Spirit, p. 270. On p. 71 seq., she has a long extract from Dr. 
Dewey (of N. York), in which he asserts, that Unitarians believe 
" in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; in the atonement, as a 
sacrifice, a propitiation ; in human depravity ; in regeneration ; in 
the doctrine of election ; and in a future state of iewards and 

18 



206 POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. V. 

punishments." On the part of such a man as Dr. Dewey, I can 
call this nothing hut gross deception* He knows well, although 

this lady-champion does not, that there is not a single MM of 
tliese doctrines, according to the usual 061186 attached to them 
by all theologians of any name, which Unitarians admit, and 
Which indeed they do not violently oppose. The artifice of Dr. 
Dewey consists in employing an entire new set of definitions. 
lie believed in such a mime, provided that name is defined agree- 
ahly to his notion of things. It is exactly a case of the same 
nature as would have heen presented by a Philistine 4 votary of 
the god of Ekron, who went up to Jerusalem, and offered him- 
self as a worshipper in the temple of Jehovah. The Jews re- 
pelled him, hecause he was an idolater. lie claimed fellowship, 
however, as Standing on the same ground with them. They 
believed in one God : IS did he. There was no other difference 
between them, than that of the definition of words ; and who 
could he so senselos as to engage in the idle task of logomachy ? 
Were the Jews now to he taken in with such hypocritical and 
delusive pretences as these ? ' No* — they would have said, 
* you believe indeed in one god ; but he is the god of Ekron, 
and a mere block of wood. The God in whom we believe is a 
Spirit, and the Maker of heaven and earth. 1 Just such a differ- 
ence there is hetween Dr. Dewey's orthodoxly named doctrines, 
and the real matter of his belief compared with that of the Or- 
thodox. His are a body without a soul — the cold and lifeless 
statue at Ekron, compared with the living and eternal Creator. 
The worst of the ca3e is, that he knows this to be so, and yet 
holds out these lures l»efore the public. And the Orthodox, 
forsooth, are bigots and logomachists, because they will not allow 
him the latitude of defining as he pleases, until he defines away 
iy distinctive attribute which marks the doctrines in question. 
It is an unworthy — a degrading artifice, to practise thus upon 
the credulity or the Ignorance of his uninstructed hearers or 
readers. It merits, (what it will he certain sooner or later to 
receive), tin; scorn of every upright and honest mind. 

With the lady J would deal more gently. She is plainly an 
offender fiom want of adequate knowledge. Less confidence 
would indeed hecome her in such a condition ; hut she does not 
appeal to be embarrassed by any troubles arising from diift- 

dence. 

Mrs. Dana, who has laid before the world so circumstantial 
and protracted an account of her trials and Bufferings from big- 
otH and bigotry, does not quit the stage without letting us know 



LETT, V.J ' UITT. 207 

issue of all this discipline. tt Thanks be unto God, -he, 

tt I am enjoying a new life. While my friends are mourning 
over rii«'. 1 am rejoicing with a calm and holy joy, which lias 
spread itself to the inmost r. f m\ soul.* 1 And a little 

further on >he a-snre> ns, that k her heaven has alread\ beuuii, in 
the u.i\ of anticipation/ 

Now all this is quite sentimental. The boofc begins* « , onfmiie% 
and ends, in a -train of entire CODSisK this matter 

►ncerncd. 

But I am exceeding the hounds allotted me: and long since 
have doubtless lost all credit with this writer and her friends, 
for courtesy and kind feeling toward a new and young adven- 
turer on the field of theology. I shall not improbably he ranked 
among denouncing bigots; nor is it at all unlikely, that 1 shall 
be accused as wanting even in the humane toward the gentler 
part of the creation, l>oth by Mrs. D. and her new friends. I 
am very sorry to lie under such an imputation ; but I really do 
not know how to help it If the young adventurer had no such 
feeling of modesty and diffidence as would make her refrain 
from so bold an attack on all Trinitarians, I cannot feel myself 
altogether guilty of a betise, because I defend a sacred enclosure 
against what I look upon in the light of a profanation. Comity 
itself must needs have some bounds. Truth must not be sacri- 
ficed to mere urbanity. I say this calmly and deliberately, in 
view of all the outcry that can be made among sentimentalists 
and exquisites. There are more serious duties to be done by a 
Christian minister, than to listen to any voice of persuasion that 
doctrines respecting the Godhead may be compromised by any 
of the usages of etiquette. I have no other apology, therefore, 
to make to Mrs. D. or to her new friends, than that I think 
the truths assailed to be too sacred to be passed by in silence. 
To her and her advisers in the matter of this publication, if 
they will tolerate it in this land of freedom, I would even ven- 
ture to suggest for their consideration, the sentiment of one of 
the shrewdest observers of human nature which the heathen 
world ever produced — Ae sutor ultra crepidam. If this advice 
should be spurned, I would with all diffidence recommend a 
careful examination of 1 Tim. 9k 12. 

I have done with Mrs. I), and her book. But the subjects 
presented, and the attitude in which some of them are placed, 
as well as the reasoning grounded upon this, seem to call for 
a few remarks. 1 engage that they shall he brief. 

Dr. Churning maintains, with much earnestness, the separate 



208 POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. V. 

personality and inftrioriti/ oftheSon of God Bui if he has nny- 
vrbere declared himself qp ticttfy , in respect to the actual rank 
which Christ holds and the constitution oi hk person, I In 

not yet met with the passage. Whether he was Arian i 

oinian, is his speculative views, ] must confess myself unable 
— liiifin toi ily to determine. Many things which he Bays of Christ 

look DMlcfa like high Arianism, and he seems to lean to i 
views of Dr. Samuel Clarke. lint whether he actually regarded 
Chrisl ss created before the world was made, specially whettoof 

he d'nl this in the latter part of his life, is not known to me. On 
the Other hand, Sociuus and his contemporaries and fellow la- 
bourers often speak in exalted terms of the Saviour, and h< 
tate not to declare that worship is due to him; hut still only a 
secondary worship, such as we may pay to a most exalted char- 
acter after an apotheosis. If .Mrs. J)., in sketching her own 
views, has al><» given a faithful portrait of the opinions of her 
confidential advisers, then are they more explicit than Dr. Chan- 
ning. No names are too high for Christ. Ue is Lord of all and 
God aver ulL and the object of worship and praise; yet all in 
subordination to one, who, with the same names, is the only and 
aloolnte Supreme, and is alone entitled to our highest spiritual 
homage and worship. She does not even once appear to \vr\ 
the immeasurable distance there is, between these high Arian 
notions and the simple JInmanitarianism of Priestley, and of a 
large portion of the Unitarians in England and this country. 
That Christ was a mtre man, when once assumed, leads natu- 
rally enough to the inquiry: Whether he was the Son of Mafy 
by a miraculous birth, or the Son of Joseph and Mary according 
to the ordinary course of things. Those who distrust and im- 
pugn all miraculous events, of course deny his miraculous birth, 
and attribute his paternity to Joseph, Of this party, if I rightly 
understand the matter, there are not a few, among I nitarians of 
the present day. 

To Dr. Chaun'uuz's admirers and friends in respect to reli- 
gious sentiment, as well as to all gradations of Humanitarians, I 
ask liberty here to put a lew questions. 

The doctrine of the Trinity is rejected and spurned at mainly 
for two reasons. ' PirSt, thiee Cannot be one, nor one three, he- 
cause it is impossible in the nature of things, inasmuch as the 
proposition presents us with a downright contradiction. Se- 
condly, admitting the possibility of a threefold distinction in i 

Godhead, the whole matter respecting Chrisl is covered with 
Impenetrable darkness and wrapped in mystery. The Bible 



FT. V.] >3WCBfTT. 1?09 

hi bits Christ M 1 man, really and truly a MOM ; and fee say, that 
; and man an united m am aeraoi^ it affirming ■ thing both 
mysterious and impossible. The unity of God, more* 
vtrttiall) denied by such a supposition. 

M >f these allegations have already been 6 TO mined 

I touch here only on what needs, perhaps, a fuller development 

I have often thought it very strange, thai Unitarians of the 

unplain everywhere of Trinitarians for intro- 

dueing so much of the mysterious and unintelligible into thru 

• in once to entertain the suspicion thai they arc 

full\ exposed to the same charge, even in a still higher degree. 

if there is any one thing that lies on the very nice of all the N. 

Testament, Gospels and Epistles and Apocalypse, it is that 

Christ was really and truly man. If the reader has a moment's 

doubt, I must refer him to pp. f>4, l.VJ above. Indeed this is 

what all Unitarians of the present day are in the constant habit 

of affirming, particularly when they Irish to expose, what they 

name the absurdity of Trinitarians, in maintaining that he is 

truly God. 

Let us take them now at their own word. Christ was a man. 
But what is a man ? A human body and a human soul consti- 
tute the being to whom we give this appellation. Let Dr. C, 
then, and all his friends and followers, choose between the horns 
of the dilemma, on which their assertions place them. 'Christ 
-ted before the world was;' for so of course the Brians must 
speak. 'He created the world ; he is the object of worship and 
homage, next to the Father.' Very well. But then, when "the 
Logos became flesh and dwelt among us," how did he unite 
with the person of Jesus, so as constitute a being truly man? 
The old Arian theory was, that he became the soul of the man 
Jesus. For argument's sake I will concede this, at present. 
But then I must be allowed of course to make some inquiries 
here. If the Logos became the soul of Jesus, then in what re- 
spect was Jesus really and truly a man? A man is made up of 
a material body and a reasonable human soul. I have always 
been accustomed to suppose, moreover, that the soul is, in a 
high and altogether preeminent sense, the very essence of man 
or human nature. The body is only the costume ; the soul is 
the person. To talk then of Christ's being a man, and on this 
ground to deny that he can have a divine nature, and yet to re- 
present him as having no human soul, but only as being inhabi- 
ted by the Logos — is this steering clear of mystery and even ab- 
surdity ? 

18* 



210 rosTSCRirT. [lett. t. 

Such is one horn of the dilemma. The other is equally promi- 
nent and sharp. A comj/ositt person, GM and man, is said by 
1'nitarians to bl an ahsurditx . But it' so, how is this at all re- 
moved by linking in the person of Jesus the fagOMK^NM and 
the fleshly natun :■ I say fleshly, lor I cannot of course speak of 
human nature, when a human soul is denied to Jesus. Here 
then Arianism itself bringl forward and eommends to our faith, 
a Saviour who is neither human nor divine, neither of the an- 
gelic tldef nor of that of the sons of men. What else is this, 
hut to hid us helieve in two natures and one person t Yea, we are 
called on to admit, that there are two created natures united in 
one and the same person. This is the other horn of the di- 
lemma. 

For my own part, I can mueli <asier helieve it to he possible 
and prohahle, that the Godhead should, in some mysterious way. 
unite man who is formed in its own image With itself, than be- 
lieve that two distinct created beings should form one person. 
For there, the mind finds some relief from the consideration, that 
u all things are possible with God." 

And how is Arianism to rid itself of this dilemma? In no 
way whatever, unless it can invent a method of entirely explain- 
ing away, either the human nature, or the higher nature of the 
Logos. 

What does it signify, now, for combatants to rush into this 
contest about the person of Christ, without once stopping to ask, 
into what difficulties their own sentiments lead them? Truly, 
among all the theories about the person of Christ, which have 
troubled the church,! think none is more forbidding, more mys- 
terious, more entirely destitute of any tolerable support from 
rea son or Scripture, than Arianism. 

The Humanitarians get rid of the difficulties of tiro natures in 
one person. Hut other difficulties occur. What becomes of the 
evangelical narrations, which aver that Jesus was born of a vir- 
gin y If admitted, then there is at least something of mystery 
about the matter. An extraordinary man of course he must be. 
If his miraculous birth is denied, then of course the Cospels are 
put on the same shelf w ith Kohinson Crusoe and the Tales of my 
Landlord. Mr. Parkei's positions, in the book Of Religion, are 
of course virtually adopted. Hut is there no difficulty and no 
mystery bete? This same Christ is said to have been "in the 
beginning with Cod:" it is said of him, that he "was God :" 
that "he made all things;" that *tbe worlds were created by 
him:" that he ik existed before Abraham ;" that he "came out 



m;i:ipt. 211 

from the Father, and was about to return to the plaee from win 
he came;" that be "had glea^ with tl»«* Father before the world 
«U f — and yet he is declared by Humanitarians to be menlv 
and onl\ a man. Is there no difficulty and no myster) hen r 
Nay, 1 may urge this matter still further. Is there any alterna- 
tive for a truly frank and honest mind here, but that of rejecting 
the authority of the New Testament. Of of L'ixin.ir Up the doctrine 

simple humanitv r All attempts to do away the plain, direct, 
and simple aeeertions of these and the like passages, are, and 
must forever be, unavailing with a straightforward and thoroughly 
Upright mind. The only consistent course in respect to the mat- 
D r is to den\ the authority of the New Testament writings. 

The often asserted imjwssibility of a iniion of two 7iaturcs in one 
person, may gather credit, but not Strength, by its repetition. It 
does not strike my mind as an impossibility. Are we not our- 
aelves examples of two natures in one person ? Even of two natures 
the opposite of each other — matter and spirit. But does this 
hinder our being one person ? Yea, I might (with Paul and the 
ancients) appeal to the well known trichotomy, or division into 
three natures, "body, soul, and spirit." That is, we are made 
up of a material body, of animal and sensitive life, and of an im- 
mortal spirit. Here then are three in one. Why now do not the 
wonder-haters stand aghast at this, and deny the possibility of it? 
Because they are aware that the common sense and feelings of 
men could not be made to side with them in so doing. But 
when we assert our belief in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as 
united in one God, they accuse us of mysticism, of credulity, and 
even of downright absurdity. In vain do we declare, that we do 
not take the word jwrson in its common sense as applied to men ; 
in vain do we assert our belief in the unity of God, even the nu- 
merical unity and sameness of substance ; in vain do we say, that 
we make no pretences of being able to define or describe the 

rt nature of the distinctions in the Godhead; in vain do we 
declare, that whatever those distinctions are, they do not and 
cannot interfere with unity. We are still met with the old ob- 
jection endlessly repeated: u Three are not one, and one is not 
three." Self-evident, we readily confess this proposition to be, 
when understood as having relation to the same thing in the 
same respect. But do we ever assert that three persons are one per- 
son ? Never. We merely affirm that the Godhead, w Inch is one 
Godhead, consists of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Is this a 
contradiction or absurdity ? It has not yet been shown to be 
such. I think it cannot be. When our opponents shall prove it 



212 POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. V. 

lo I.,- an absurdity, that three natures should constitute one hu- 
man person, we will review oui positions. 

Lei HM not be IMdSISlned to say, or hint, that the distinctions 
in the Godhead are on a par with these, as to the manner of them. 

This eannot be so, from tin- very nature of an uncreated Being. 
But the possibility of a union in one Godhead, of distinctions 
which in some respects may be separately considered, is not a 
thing than can he disproved. Reason knows nothing of this 
matter, indeed. Philosophy like that of Schelling and Il< 
has failed to demonstrate such a union. It rests on the credit 
Of revelation. lie who denies this, may deny that. But to show 
that the Scriptures have made no such revelation, when inter- 
preted in a lair and impartial manner, I must believe to be ut- 
terly impossible* 

Of what us*- is it, now, to assume positions in respect to the 
doctrine of the Trinity, which no enlightened Trinitarian holds, 
and then to reject this doctrine because of the absurdity of those 
positions .- Vet I cannot take up a Unitarian book on this sub- 
ject, where this is not virtually done. 

One word more, on the perpetually decantated unity of the 
Godhead. All Unitarians profess an unusual attachment to this 
article of their Creed, and they seem to consider the whole mat- 
ter as BO plain and simple, that it scarcely needs the slightest ef- 
fort to comprehend it. But is this really so? The matter is 
sufficiently important to seek for an explicit and intelligible an- 
swer to this question. 

When they say, then, that God is one, do they mean to assert 
that his essence, or the constituent elements of his being, is of one 
simple homogeneous substance ? In other words, do they mean 
that his ontologies! essence consists of only one element? I 
take* it for granted that no intelligent man among them will con- 
tend for this; first, because we know nothing at all what that is 
Which constitutes such essence ; and secondly, because, even if 
Kg possessed some knowledge of this nature, no one could de- 
termine such a question as that before us, without having made 
an analysis of the element or elements in <piestion. It is almost 
presumption even to speak of such a thing. 

Then, moreover, all the objects with which we are acquainted, 

present uitiliis, without these objects being made up of simple 
homogeneous elements. A tree is one, a plant is one, a moun- 
tain is Site, a country is one, a man is one, and so of the rest, 

without any simplicity and homogeneousnos of constituent 
parts. The unify, in all these cases, consists in something en- 



LETT. 1 POSTdCBII 213 

tirely distinct from the constituent onto for 

these arc mi\< J and diverse, The oneness of the Godhead d 

onoi a- viewed b) us) consist of mere simplicity and 
identity atitueot essential elements i t'<>r in predicai 

unit i our inindd at all on considerations of this 

nature. 

In what then does this unity positivelj and absolutely coi 
A positive definition of it, Le. an affirmative definition, I be- 
have no Unitarian can well give, however familiar be may he 
with tit rminology. We may say negatively, that 

there, is baH I iM God and DO more, and the 

like ; yet all of this makes no approach to an affirmative defini- 
tion. Unity, moreover, cannot consist in sameness or uoro\ 
(I can find no adequate English word] of attribute ; tor the God- 

d has many attributes. It cannot consist in on- 
Hon ; tor there ie B variety of this. e. g. creatine. su-tain- 

awarding, punishing, etc. 
If now we push this inquiry to its utmost bounds, we shall he 
obliged, at last, to fall hack upon our own as of one- 

ness or identity of soul, in all the various stages of our existBl 
Our co of identity is our highest evidence of oneness 

in our souls, or in our person-, (persons in the metaphysical 
sense). What we are conscious of in ourselves, as constituting 
our essential 1 or Ezoismus, we apply to the Godhead, when we 
assert its unity. We mean that there is the same identical 
S rit or Mind, which thinks and acts at all times and in all 
Whatever may be th tial or ontologies! constitu- 

ents or elements of this Spirit or Mind, they have been, are, and 
will continue to he. identically the same, and of course the same 
Mind or Agent will continue to exist. In such a sense we af- 
firm that God is oiu. We tacitly refer, in such an assertion, to 
our own consciousness of oneness and identity in our spirits. 

. what is there in all this, which renders it impossible or 
ird, that there should he distinctions in the Godhead? We 
that it is u the same in suhstance f that there are not two 
or more wills, two or more consciously not two or 

more distinct sete so to speak) of essential attribute.-; and the 
like. But how does all this piove, that in the Godhead there 
are no distinctions, which, by the manner of their development, 
have given rise to the names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; J, 
Thou, He; ami the like? Imperfection of language oblige- 
to express these distinctions in such a way. Who can venture 
to assert, that there are not jnoclijications of the divine Being 



214 POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. V. 

which give rise to all this, and which do not at all interfere with 
it- essential I'nitv r It would he even metapln sically and phi- 
lo>ophicall\ presumptuous, to say that there are not, and cannot 

he, such distinctions or modifications. J readily grant that n\c 

cannot prove them hy the aid of mere natural theology. Jlut I 
am equally certain, that we cannot disprove them. The whole 
matter must DO referred to nrtlulion. And it' sueh a fact or 
doctrine is revealed, no man can >ho\v that it is Stamped with 
any absurdity or contradiction of the divine Unity. Of course 
he cannot show, that we are hound to reject such a doctrine Oil 

this ground. 

Why then should a triumphant air he so often assumed hy 
Unitarian writers, as if they were the only men in the world suf- 
ficiently rational to vindicate the divine Unity? Why should 

they so often claim to he the only advocates of a consistent and 

rational view of the nature of the Godhead ? I deny the justice 
of such claims. I deny the right to charge us with believing in 
three Gods, or with maintaining what is in itself ahsurd or im- 
poSSfbfo. It is easy, I well know, to talk largely and loudly of 
the divine unity. J5ut it is not so easy to define what one really 
means hy it. It is still harder to show, that unity is at all in- 
compatible with the distinctions of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
when these are understood in the scriptural sense. 

I scarcely need to surest, that probably neither Mrs. D., nor 
thousands of others who have the words one God so constantly 
in their mouths, ever bestowed one serious hour of reflection on 
the inquiry: What idea does this language exactly convey? 
And when we get to the ne plus ultra of our inquiries, we find 
nothing that can show us in any degree, that die doctrine of the 
Trinity involves either an impossibility or an absurdity. 

We say respecting ourselves, that the understanding perceives 
and comprehends, that the will decides, that reason ponders and 
compares and deduces, and the like. That is, we often assign 
distinct and diverse attributes to the soul or mind, and speak of 
thetn as distinct agents, doing different things and active in a 
variety of ways. JSut in the language of sound and well ar- 
ranged philosophy WC also say: The so?// comprehends, decide*, 
ponders, compares, concludes, and the like. Will any one ven- 
ture to call the propriety of either of these methods of expression in 
question? I trust not. Jf this he allowed, on all hands, is there not 
Something to be learned from it, in respect to the subject hefore 

ne? Wh> may we not say, that the Father does this, the Send 

that, and the Holy ►Spirit dons another and different tiling, and 



ft. v.] Pom< vm. ill 

\«t say, with perfect truth, ami correctness that God does each 
of these things? Some oflhe ancients held man to be i njcro- 
a»/fi, that is a comprcaosd similitude or reseniblanoe of the 
whole world. Without appealing to this, ire have better an- 
th(»rity for saying, that " .Mau was made iu the image of God." 
Our mind or spirit performs acts bo diverse, and is constitution^ 

ally and isst nti'dhf mi fitted tO perform SUCh acts, that w c name 

it- si vera! faculties as agents in and bj themselves, when v#e 

speak of those acts which arc appropriate to each; and yet we 

do not ooce think of doing an\ violence by all this to me doe- 
trine of OUT OWn unity. Why now can it not l>c true of lather, 
Son. and Holy Ghost, that there is a foundation in the essential 

nature of the Godhead, for the diversity of acts attributed to 

•h of them, while one and the same God is u in all, and over 
all, and through all?" I do not say — I must not be understood 
as meaning to aver, that any comparison drawn from created 
beings is fully adequate to explain the nature of an uncreated 
and eternal Being. The thing is impossible. But I may say, 
that since man is made in the image of God, we may help to 
remove difficulties that lie in our way in regard to our conceptions 
of the Trinity, by inviting attention to a like mystery in respect to 
ourselves. I may call, moreover, on all sober and reasoning Uni- 
tarians to consider, whether there is anything more absurd or 
contradictory, in saying that the Father does this, and the Son 
that, and the Spirit another thing, and also in saying that God 
does each of these things, than there is in saying, that the un- 
derstanding does this, and the will that, and reason another 
thing, and yet that the sold does each and all of these. Is there 
a sound thinker in the land, who will venture to say, that this 
language in respect to the soul is not every day employed, and 
employed without any apprehension of creating difficulties in 
respect to the unity of the soul ? Why should the like use of 
language, then, in regard to the Godhead, be viewed in such a 
light as to name it absurd and irrational? Truly the assertion 
of Unitarians, that Trinity is incompatible with Unity, and that 
distinctions in the Godhead are based upon impossibility and 
absurdity, are far — in my judgment very far — from having any 
solid foundation. 



nvo DISCOURSES 



ON 



THE ATONEMENT 



19 



[Tbi two following Sermons on die Atonement were delivered in tlic 
Chapel of the TheoL Seminary in Andover t in the year 1824, when then 

med to be a BpeciaJ call for a discussion of the Bubject of which they 
treat. They were printed soon after delivery, by request of the Students 
and others : and they have, Bince thai period, been several times reprint- 
ed, partly in large editions. For some time peal there have been none 
for Bale. The frequency of the inquiry for them, and the importance of 
the Bubject, are my apology for reprinting them at present, if an apolo- 
gy be necessary. My views in respect to the subject of the Sermons 
hate not changed since that period, excepting that they have become 
more vivid and intensive, if there be a central point in the system of 
Christianity, around which all the rest of the system moves, I am satis- 
fied that it i- the doctrine of Ai<>m:mi:\t. or (in other words) the vi< \- 
BIOU8 SUFVXRINGfl and DJU.TB 00 ( 'h liisr. in order that sinners may 

be pardoned and redeemed. The design of the two following discos 
is to remove the leading objections to this doctrine, and to establish it 
on a scriptural basis. It would be easier, in some respects, to write a 
hook mi such a subject, than to compress what one has to -ay. within the 
limits of two abort discourses. But then brevity has its advantages, in 
some cases; and I mu-t leave more .ample discussion to professed The- 
gians, whose proper business it i-. Of course, no intelligent peasosi 
can regard the discourses which follow, as anything mure than a mere 
outiiit- of the all-important Bubject under consideration. — M. S.] 
M< 



DISCOURSE I 



ISAIAH i. in. 

Hf. was w <m m.{[> FOR Oim TRAFSGR1 9SIORI : III". \\ it BR1 ISED FOR 
mi R IlfiqtTITIES ; THE CHASTISEMENT OF OCR PEACE WAS rruN 
him J \M» iT BIS STRIFES IBM WE HEALED. Al.l WE i.iki 8H] I P 
H\ i ASTRAY J F< I HATE TURNED f.yf.ky <>\i; i o HIS o\\ N 

WAY J AND THE LORD II VTH LAID ON HIM TDK INIQUITY OF TS ALL. 

Tni: sentiment of tlii> passage may perhaps be made more 
perspicuous, by a translation of it somewhat nearer to the 
spirit of the original. 

" He was wounded on account of our transgressions ; he 
was smitten on account of our iniquities ; the chastisement 
by which our peace is procured was laid on him ; and by his 
wounds are we healed. All we like sheep have gone astray ; 
we have wandered each one in the path that he chose ; and 
Jehovah hath laid on him the punishment due to us all." 

This passage, no less than the august personage to whom 
it relates, has been to the Jews of ancient and modern times 
a stumbling block, and to many of the Gentiles foolishness. 
Very soon after Christians, when disputing with the Jews 
about Christ crucified, began to make their appeal to it, as 
proof that a suffering and atoning Saviour, Jesus of Naza- 
reth, was foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Jews set 
themselves to find out some other person, or some class of 
men, concerning whom the prophet might be regarded as 
here speaking. Some of them have maintained, that the 
prophet had reference to their nation at large ; some that he 
had respect to Uzziah, Hezekiah, or Joeiah; while others 
suppose, that Isaiah, Jeremiah, or some one of the prophets, 
was the subject of his description. ISTor have commentators 



220 -i m; atonf.mi [DI8C. L 

and critic- among Christians been wanting, who hare advo- 
cated the opinions thus proposed by the Jews. Of late, the 
prevailing sentiment among the so-called neological class of 

critics ie, that the ]>rn],J t rtl<> order of men among the He- 
brews, rather than any particular individual of it, is r efe rr ed 

to by Isaiah. As the prophet8, in ancient time-, were often 
subjected to Bufferings and death, by the persecuting spirit 
which reigned among their contemporaries ; so they are sup- 
posed to he represented, in our text and context, as bearing 
the sins of the nation, and making atonement for them. 

It is not my present design to enter into a particular ex- 
amination of these discrepant and very unsatisfactory inter- 
pretations. To the Jew 1 would say : In what other part of 
the Old Testament are the sufferings of any mere king or 
prophet ever represented as expiatory? The Mosaic law has 
prescribed expiatory sacrifices ; and has prescribed all that 
were to be offered under the ancient dispensation. What 
part of this law speaks of expiation by the sufferings and 
death of any mere king or prophet ? Or if the Jewish na- 
tion at large be the subject of the prophet's description, 
where is this nation, when persecuted and suffering, repre- 
sented as an expiatory sacrifice? And for whom did they 
make expiation? On the contrary, are they not always rep- 
resented as bearing the punishment due to their awn trans- 
gressions, and not as bearing that due to others? 

To the commentator bearing the name of Christian, and 
disposed to follow these wanderings of unbelief and olfence 
at the cross of Christ in which the Jews have so long indul- 
ged, I have only one brief remark to make ; which is, that 
evangelists and apostles have told us, who is the subject of 
the prophet's description in our text and context. When the 
treasurer of the Ethiopian qtieen had been up to worship at 

Jerusalem, and was returning home, by an express direction 
from the Spirit of God Philip the evangelist met him. Afl 
Philip drew near, he heard the Ethiopian reading a portion 
of our chapter: k ' lie was led M a sheep to the slaughter; 
and like a lamb before his shearers, so he opened not his 



DISC. I.] 1 HI A.TON 221 

mouth, In his humiliation, his judgment was takes away; 
Mi who shall declare hi> generation? for hi- life h taken 
Grom the earth. And the eunuch laid to Philip : Of whom 
aketh the prophet this? Of himself} or of some other 
man? Thru Philip opened his mouth, and began at the 
tame Scripture, and preached onto him JESUS.'- Acts 8: 

also applied a part of our chapter to the Basse <lis- 
jui>hed Sufferer. 4 - Christ suffered tor us . . . his own Belf 

our -in- in his own body on the tree ... by who.-e strij 
an healed ; tor ye were as sheep going astray." 1 Pet. 

-1 — 25. The two last phrases are quotations from our 
text itself) and are certainly applied by the apostle directly 
to the Saviour. 

I add only, that Jesus himself cites a part of the chapter 
from which our text is taken, as containing a description of 
hi- own sufferings: " I say unto you, that what is written 
must be accomplished in me : And he was reckoned among 
the transgressors." Luke 22: 07, comp. Is. 53: 12. 

I feel no concern further to vindicate the application of the 
text to the person of the Messiah. The matter resolves it- 
self into the simple question, whether the interpretation of 
evangelists and apostles is to be admitted, and believed to be 
correct ; or whether our own conjecture or philosophical ra- 
tiocination is to be the ultimate authority, to which w r e must 
make our appeal. 

From the language of our text? as applied to Christ, I de- 
duce the proposition, that he suffered as our substitute ; 

Or, that HIS SUFFERINGS AND DEATH WERE AN EXPIATORY 
OFFERING, ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH OUR SINS ABE PARDON- 
ED, AM) WE A Jit: RE8TO&ED TO THE DIVINE FAVOUR. 

My present object is to discuss the doctrine of the atone- 
ment made by Christ, which this proposition brings to our 
view ; and in doing this, I design, 

I. To make some explanations necessary to a right under- 
standing of the subject. 

II. To prove the doctrine. 

*I9 



Till: ATOXKMF.XT. DI>C. I« 

J II. To answer KHDfl objections all tinst it. 

aiding to the method proposed, I am, lirst, to make 
•• explanations necessary to a right understanding of our 

Subject. 

In order to avoid all misapprehension of the design which 
I haw in view, let me observe at the commencement of this 
discourse, thai it is not my object to treat of the oh of 

Christ, considered as having an influence upon our redemp- 
tion, or in procuring salvation for as* I speak of obedience 
here, in the sense which many of the older divines mean to 
express, when they employ the phrase active obedience of 
Christ, in order to distinguish his positive fulfilment of the 
divine law from what they name his p<is.<icc obedience, by 
which they mean his humiliation and sufferings. To pursue 
the inquiry, in what sense, or to what degree, the active obe- 
dience of Christ contributes to our redemption, would carry 
me too far from the specilic object which I now have in view. 
I shall therefore dismiss this topic with simply remarking, 
that while the sufferings and death of Christ are everywhere 
represented as the special procuring cause of our redemp- 
tion, yet his obedience is also represented as a concurring 
cause or ground of our salvation. The Saviour's entire obe- 
dience or sinless perfection was essential to his character as 
ubstitute for sinners ; for if he himself had sinned, instead 
of presenting an acceptable sacrifice for others, himself would 
have needed an expiatory offering. That all which he did 
and said, during his incarnate condition, had some bearing 
on the great work which he came to accomplish, and did in 
some way contribute to it, cannot reasonably be doubted. 
But his expiatory sacrifice appears to be the great point, on 
which rests in a peculiar manner the hope of our restoration 
to the divine favour. 

To proceed with the explanation proposed under the p 
nt head ; when I say Christ in h ings w 11 B- 

-iii i n:. or. In/ them he made (in r.xriAioKY OFFERING 
us, I mean that GrOD did APPOINT and a< « in mil m i- 

fjounos oi Christ, in>u;ai> or infu< nv. the ltn- 



. i.] Till LT0H1 v: 22:] 

1MIM1NT ] > US AS SIWN1 LIK8T Hit LAWj and 

that in ecru - fer* 

and ft 1 to his favour* 

A 1 something put in lien <>f another thing, and 

epted instead of it. An g ia something presented 

to God. An offering which i< acceptable to him, is one 

made by \w< appointment An expiatory offering, under the 

rish law, h slain beast, presented to God by his ap- 

itnirnt, and by a person who had been guilty of some 

offence and incurred some penalty ; in consequence of which 

n, the penalty for his offence, threatened by the 

law of Mioses, iraa remitted, or the offender was pardoned. 

To say then that Christ made an expiatory offering for us, 

according to my apprehension of the meaning of scriptural 

language, implies that his sufferings and death were, by di- 

ntment, accepted instead of the punishment due to 

us as sinners, and that God, in consequence of the offering 

made by Christ, pardons our offences and restores us to his 

favour. This also is just what I mean, when I say that 

Christ in his sufferings and death icas our substitute. 

I do not feel at all disposed to find any fault with other 
language, which Christians may choose to employ, in order 
to designate the idea that I have now expressed, provided 
they define the sense in which they employ it, and do not 
leave it open to misconstruction. So doing they may say : 
" Christ made satisfaction for our sins;" or, "his death w T as 
a full equivalent for the demands of the law ;" or, " our pun- 
ishment — our guilt — was transferred to him ;" for certainly 
our text employs phraseology equally strong, and of the 
same nature with this. I may also say: " Christ made 
atonement — Christ atoned — for our sins ; his sufferings were 
vicarious — were in lieu of ours ; he bore the punishment due 
to 1 I may use other and different expressions of the 

same nature, to designate my ideas relative to the subject 
before us ; but whatever phraseology of this kind I might 
employ, or whatever I may employ in this discourse, my 
meaning would and will be one and the same, viz. Christ 



224 mi-: atoxf.mfxt. [disc. r. 

r i -\riAToi;v mil. SOBSim R, in the 

mom already explained* 

So far as I am able to u nd er s t a nd the language which 
Christians io general, who receive tlic doctrine of the atone- 
ment, have employed in respect to this subject, it is designed 
to convey the idea that I have just conveyed. I am aware 
that one may occasionally meet with expressions in some 
writers, relative to the Bufferings of Christ, that seem to im- 
ply something more than what I have expressed, or some- 
thing different from it. Bat most divines, who have clearly 
explained themselves, appear to me substantially to agree 
With the view which I have given of substitution or expiato- 
ry ottering. IF this be the fact, is it not idle to waste time 
and pains, in contending about certain mode* of i rj,rcssion^ 
which some may choose to employ, but which others think it 
better to avoid because they are liable to misconstruction, 
when, after all, there is a substantial agreement in regard to 
the idea, to be designated ? In reality, can such contention 
amount to anything more than a strife about words? A 
strife unworthy of sober and earnest inquirers after truth ; 
and one which never can serve any purpose, but to alienate 
from each other and divide those, who love the Saviour, and 
trust far acceptance with God solely in his atoning blood. 

To pursue still farther the explanation of the leading terms 
employed to de.-ignate the doctrine which I am to establish ; 
a s'tbsfif/ifr may be, and where it is voluntarily accepted on 
the part of him to whom any debt or reparation is dins must 
b<-, an equivalent of some kind or other, a satufaction in some 
BCBSe, for such debt or penally due. Bat it may be equiva- 
lent or satisfactory, without being the same either in kind or 
quantity as that in the place of which it comes. For plainly 
an equivalent US of two sorts. The fret has respect to kind 
and quantity^ and requires equality or sameness in regard to 
both. The second is where the substitute answers the same 
0*4 Bfl that would have done in the place of which it is put, 
or a higher end of the same nature. The first species of 
substitution or equivalency belongs to various transactions of 



MSO. L] I Mi: AinMMIN 1. 225 

business among men ; Bach as borrowing :m<l lendio 
change of various species of property] and other things of the 

like nature. (Equivalency of the second kind has reaped to 

transactions of a civil or penal nature, and to the intercOU 

of rational beings with each other, as subjects of social or 
othci- lawa For example, banishment is often substituted 
by civil governments instead of inflicting the penalty of death ; 
fines, instead of imprisonment or other corporeal punishment* 

among men in their daily intercourse, confession of a 

fault, joined with a request of forgiveness, is accepted as a 
satisfaction for an injury done, or an insult offered; and is 

urded as an equivalent tor it. In all cases of this nature, 
which are exceedingly numerous and diversified, both in re- 
gard to the intercourse of men with each other, and in re- 
3>6Cl to civil rulers and their subjects, the equivalent or sat- 
isfaction is not usually the same in kind or quantity as that 
for which it is substituted. Indeed, in all transactions which 
have respect to a penalty for any injury done, or any viola- 
tion of law, where substitution is admitted with regard to the 
offender, the first kind of equivalency, or that which consists 
in the same quality and quantity, is out of the question. 
The letter of a penal law demands that the offender himself, 
and no other, should suffer. But the object of the penalty — 
the ultimate and highest object of attaching it to a law — may 
be attained, perhaps, in some other way, and by substitution ; 
even in a more effectual manner, in some cases, than by a 
literal infliction of the punishment threatened. On the sup- 
position that it can be so attained, then if a substitute be ad- 
mitted instead of literally inflicting the penalty, satisfaction 
may be truly said to be made, or an equivalent rendered, ac- 
cording to the common usage and understanding of all men, 
in respect to subjects of this nature. Indeed the term equiva- 
lent has come, in general usage, most commonly to imply, that 
the substitute not only may, but actually does, differ in some 
respects from that for which it is substituted. 

If Christ died then as a substitute for sinners, it is not at 
all necessary to suppose, that his sufferings were the same 



I EIE A rONEMENT. [DISC. I. 

able horror, does he exhibit on the cross! Thousands of 
other sufferers have met death, in all its most dreadful fern 
with far more composure, even when unsupported l»v the 
the consolations and hopes of religion. Thousands of mar- 
tyrs, feeble, emaciated, thousands even of the more deliea 

., have been stretched on the rack, or cast into the lam 
— punishments more dreadful than simple crucifixion — while 
with a dauntless, nay with a triumphant spirit, they rejoiced 
in the midst of torments. Hut here is a sufferer, the only 
one on earth who ever had a spotless character, tilled too with 
exalted and certain hopes of ultimate triumph and glory, first 
shrinking with horror from the enp of Buffering which In* \\ 
to drink, and then uttering language indicative of the highest 
ible agitation and distress upon the cross. 

All this, now, presents a difficulty which cannot be solved, 
on the ground that his death was in any respect like that of 
a common man. If it indeed were such, must he not be re- 
garded by every one who contemplates his demeanor on the 
cro.->. a- wanting in calmness and fortitude of soul, when he 
was so appalled and agitated with sufferings which others 
have triumphantly endured? Are we not constrained then 
to regard him as suffering in a degree unparalleled) indescrib- 
able, in short not capable of being adequately conceived of 
by us 1 

What this degree was, the Scriptures have not explicitly 
declared ; nor indeed was such a declaration necessary. 
Enough, that in his Buffering the awful displeasure of God 
■gMBfll sin has been manifested in a most impressive manner. 
Enough, if God has judged that his Bufferings, as our substi- 
tute, were carried to such a height as was by infinite wisdom 
deemed necessary, in order to promote the best designs of 
the divine government. 

To pursue my explanation ; although I cannot consider an 
equivalent of the first kind as being rendered by the death of 
Christ, yet 1 fully believe that one of the second kind wa> 
rendered The object o£ the penalty affixed to the divine 
law is noi nrv,<</c. " God takes no pleasure in the death of 






. i.] mi \ i..\i mi m . 

him that dieth.' of nil p 

and bene vole n I government, i> to pul restraint upon offeno 

simony or warning against them, and 
to secure the inter \ irtue and obedience, 

[fnow virtue be in the bail manner promoted, and tin n i - 
I, by the death of Christ and the consequences that. 

llow from it, thru tin of the di\ 

law and it- penalties is promoted in the most effectual man* 
aer. Such 1 suppose t<> be Ihe fact ; but this is not the 
proper place to establish it. I only state bo much, therefore, 
jsary to elucidate the meaning which I assign to 
the language that I have employed. Indeed, I view the 
great object of the divine law ai answered by the death of 
Christ in a much higher degree, than it could have been by a 
mere law-administration and literal infliction of the penalty. 
Must not his death be regarded as a more awful manifesta- 
tion of divine displeasure against sin, than the execution of 
the law on sinners themselves ? I am forced to view the 
subject in this light, when I contemplate the infinite dignity 
of the Saviour's person, and the spotless purity of his char- 
acter, and then turn my eye to Gethsemane, and to the 
scenes of the cross. 

I confess myself averse to indulging much in speculation 
here, as to the how and the ichy of the equivalency in question. 
My reason is, that the sacred writers do not seem to indulge 
in any curious speculation on the subject. Some things, as 
presented by them, appear exceedingly plain. When they 
bring to our view the Word, wdio was in the beginning with 
God and who was God ; who created all things ; who is 
God over all, and blessed forever; the tkue God and 
eternal life ; and represent him as becoming incarnate — as 
taking the form of a servant and becoming obedient unto 
death, even the death of the cross ; and all this on our ac- 
count, that we might be redeemed from deserved ruin ; they 
do this to excite our gratitude, our love, our humility, our 
obedience ; and also to urge upon us our obligation to devote 
ourselves, with all we have and are, to the service of him 

20 



230 MIL ATO.M.MLNT. [DISC. I. 

"who loved u<, and who gave himself to die for as." They 

teach us that the gospel presents motive- tu obedience of a 
higher nature, and puts restraints upon vice that are more i -f- 
fretual, than a system of law could do. With this iay 

well be content : for with this they appear to have been sat- 
isfied. vYhere is there any philosophizing, any refined Bp 
ulatiuu in their writings, about the manner in which equiv- 
alency or satisfaction is or can be made out ? Can we not 

acquiesce in the subject, just as they have left it? If they 

present the death of Christ as a monitory and most affecting 
display of the evil of sin, and of the divine displeasure agar 
it, the value of which h enhanced beyond description by the 
dignity of his person, and the peculiar severity of his suffer- 
ings; and if this makes an appeal to the moral sensibilit 
of the human race, in favour of gratitude and obedience to 
God, and against sin. in a manner far more affecting and suc- 
cessful, than the literal execution of the penalty of the law 
on sinners ; is not this sufficient ? And if thus much lies on 
the face of the New Testament, and every reader, learned 
and unlearned, can see and feel it : this is enough. The ob- 
ject of the law is in the most effectual manner answered. 

For myself, I need nothing more than this to produce qui- 
etude of mind, in regard to this part of our subject. More 
than this, the Laplander and the Hottentot — nay most of the 
human race — cannot well be expected to understand ; nor can 
I see how it is really important that they should. If oth< 
feel that clear and .satisfactory views about the manner in 
which equivalency is made oat, are to be obtained by pursu- 
ing the speculations of a refined philosophy, I will not object. 
But I ma] 5t one caution, viz., that if we attempt to 

build the doctrine ^\' atonement on the speculations of phi- 
losophy, and do not acquiesce in the matter as it is simply 

presented by the writers of the New Testament — so -imply 

that the heathen can understand and feel it as well as we — 
then we must not be surprised, if we find some other modes of 

what may be deemed more refined philosophy, objecting to 
the atonement, and claiming a right to prostrate the edifice 



DISC. I.] HI' ; Ml N I. M 

which ire had «1 i<> be reared and established, by the 

same power which has raised it up. 

J have Sai I enough] I trilSt) tO explain what I mean, and 

i what I do not mean, by the principal terms employed 

relative to the doctrine which I am disoossingi I pan <>n 

then. 

II. TV) prove the doctrine, that Christ in hi- sufferings was 

our -i B8TIT1 n:, or that bj them he made an BXPIATOET 
OFi bring for sinn< 

Here I must ask at the threshold : Before what tribunal 
must the question be brought which this subject necessarily 

I am hold to aver that philosophy is not a competent judge 
to decide it. In averring this, however, I take it for granted, 
that philosophy is unable to disprove the credit due to divine 
revelation. On the supposition that such is the tact, and as 
a believer in divine revelation, I hold myself under obligation 
to prove nothing more in regard to the substitution or expia- 
tory sacrifice of Christ, than that the Scriptures have re- 
vealed it as a fact, lias God declared it to be a fact ? 
Do the Saviour and his apostles declare it to be so ? These 
are the questions, and the only ones of any particular impor- 
tance, about which a sincere and implicit believer in the di- 
vine testimony needs to be solicitous. It cannot surely be of 
much consequence, what difficulties can be raised by specu- 
lating on philosophical grounds, about the nature or manner 
of substitution. The fact itself is that with which we are 
concerned, as poor ruined sinners. We might indeed well say, 
that when the authority of revelation is once admitted, the 
questions xchy and how, in respect to the atonement, might be 
entirely dismissed from our discussion, as being by no means 
necessarily attached to it. Does philosophy find the doctrine 
of atonement by the death of the Son of God mysterious? 
We readily concede that it is so ; and we know that the dis- 
tinguished apostle of the Gentiles believed the mystery of god- 
liness to be great ; and that the angels themselves are repre- 
sented as earnestly desirous of prying into this mystery. 



232 Till: ATONEMENT. [DISC. I. 

Bui if philosophy wondera here, (for which we will not 

blame her), yd die has no right to scoff. If atonement by 

the vicarious Buffering and death of Chrfet he a reality, it M 
one which the hook of God only reveals. I fully agree with 
the Naturalists hi Baying, that the book of nature presents 
nothing but a blank leaf, in respect to an atonement effected 

in this manner. No( one syllable can be made out from it, 
with any certainty. The necessity of BOme atonement or ex- 
piatory offering, has indeed been felt by nearly all the human 
race, however unenlightened. It has been universally ac- 
knowledged, in the bloody sacrifices which they have offered 
to the gods whom they worshipped. But the method of it, as 
proposed in the Gospel, is quite above the discovery of unen- 
lightened or even philosophical reason. The most rigid sect 
Of moralists among the heathen did not admit, that pardoning 
mercy could with any propriety be extended to those, who 
had incurred the penalty which justice demanded. Seneca 
declares that a wise man docs not remit the punishment which 
he ought to exact. (De Clementia 11. 0, 7). How then could 
this philosopher, or those who were like him, discover or be- 
lieve the doctrine of substitution or vicarious suffering by the 
death of the Son of God? AVhat they never imagined, or 
what many when it is proposed to them regard as foolishness, 
( iod has declared to be the means of salvation. To revelation 
then we must go for any instruction, with regard to the doc- 
trim.' of pardoning mercy through the atoning blood of Jesus. 

I >u t another view of the subject is necessarily Suggested by 
that which has now been taken. This IS, that as philosophy 
was unable to discover the doctrine of atonement by Christ, 

lhe is equally incompetent to make any valid objections 
against it. She cannot show that it is absurd. Could this be 
done, then we must admit that the doctrine of atonement by 
Vicarious Buffering would be incapable of defence ; for the 
human mind, if it be well illuminated, and guided in its 18- 

rches by candour and a love of truth, cannot receive and 

ivdit that which is absurd. Bat who does not know that 
through ignorance, prejudice, and haste, or when influenced 



. i.] rai 203 

by erroneous philosophy, some men may pronounce things to 
tbsard, which the most acute, sober, and judicious think to 
rational ? in regard, however, to the doctrine of sub- 
stitution, the matter ><•< ms to be quite clear. Absurd this 
if cannot be called; fur the wisest andbesl hu- 
man governments, as has already been mentioned, often admit 

the principle in respect to penalties incurred. But will any one 
OOUnt of this, to accuse civil rulers of acting irra- 
tionally and absurdly? Willanyone even venture the asser- 
tion, that this principle, prudently and soberly applied, is not the 

mean- of evident gain in respect to the great ends which 
civil government is designed to accomplish? If not, then 
surely it must be conceded, that infinite power, connected with 
infinite wisdom and benevolence, can employ substitution in 
such a way as to promote the important ends of the divine 
government. Philosophy, most evidently, has it not in her 
power to disprove this; and therefore has no right to deny 
the possibility of it ; much less to declare that the doctrine is 
absurd. In short, as she cannot do this, nor disprove the 
credit due to revelation, it is plain that the matter comes not 
at all within her jurisdiction. 

The question in respect to substitution, then, stands high 
above the objections which all the efforts of philosophy can 
raise ; equally unaffected by her sophistry at one time, or by 
her scorn and contumely at another. 

It follows from what has been said, that the impossibility of 
substitution, under the divine government, cannot be estab- 
lished. Nay, I advance farther, and aver that so far from 
there being any impossibility in the case, it is a matter of fact 
that substitution was admitted for nearly fifteen centuries, 
under the Mosaic dispensation ; to say nothing of the expia- 
tory sacrifices of the patriarchal age. It was admitted, too, 
under the Mosaic economy, as a type of the substitution or 
expiatory offering of Christ. Paul has taught us, in the most 
explicit manner, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, that all the 
expiatory offerings and sacrifices of the Jews were typical of 
the great atoning sacrifice by the death of Christ ; and that they 

20* 



234 i in: atonement. [disci. 

Wert originally designed hg God to be W. Consequently, when 
thus authorized, we may draw a comparison from the one, in 
order to illustrate the other. 

The expiatory offerings of the law were not a substitution, 
I admit, which did of itself procure a remission of the punish- 
ment due to the moral turpitude of sin ; for it is impossible, 
i- the .-acred writer lias told us, that the blood of gOfttS and 

bullocks should take away Bin, and tranquillize the conscience 
wounded by a sense of guilt It could not remove the appre- 
hension, thai divine displeasure might inflict on the offender 

punishment of a spiritual nature. But Still, it is a fact that 
the blood of goats and bullocks was appointed by God, to be 
an expiatory offering for certain offences against the Jewish 
law ; while at the same time this very offering WBS also a type 
of the sacrifice to be offered by Christ, in order to remove the 
punishment due to moral turpitude. lie who brought a sin 
or trespass offering, and presented it to the Lord, was ex- 
empted from the sentence which the law of Moses pronounced 
against the external offence that he had committed. The 
whole nation, as such, were freed, on the great day of atone- 
ment, from the penalty annexed to certain offences, when the 
high-priest entered the most holy place, and presented the 
blood of the national offering or victim before Jehovah; not 
indeed from the punishment of a spiritual nature due to sin, 
but from penalty of an external nature, threatened to be In- 
flicted during the present life. In a word. God as the sove- 
reign legislator and judge of the Jews did. by the exercise of 
his supreme 4 right, actually appoint sin and trespass offerings 
a- expiatory Sacrifices; which, being presented agreeably to 
his appointment, were followed by the real remission, on his 
part, of the penalty due to certain olVcnces, which was threat- 
ened by the law of MoseS. So the apostle himself Mates the 
Subject : u The blood of bulls and goats, and the a<hes of a 
heifer, sprinkling those who were defiled, made expiation in 
respect to external purity," i. e. after the performance of such 



. i.] mi LTom mi \t. 285 

rifieial rites, the Jews were regarded and treated, in r 

tenia] relations, as pare er fires firom exposure to 
tli<* penalty threatened bj the law of Hoses. Heb. 9: 2 

The tact j ted cannot be oailed in question. We 

have only to open the book of Leviticus, and it i< at once i 
hibited before our ej i s. 

-Avr presented with a case of substitution; 
substitution by the appointment of God, the BupitflM 

islator and judge of the Jewish nation and of all men; a 

e in which a beast was slain, instead of the criminal being 
punished who made an offering of it, and who had himself in- 
curred the penalty of the Mosaic law. 

But haw and why such an expiation as has been described 
WAS mad-' by the blood of slain beasts, different persons have 
endeavoured, and might endeavour, to explain in various ways. 
I cannot enter at all here, into the discussion of this point. 
Suffice it to Bay, that all who admit the reasoning in the epis- 
tle to the Hebrews, must admit that the Jewish sacrifices were 
typical of the sacrifice of Christ. Do not the representations 
of the Scripture also entitle us to believe, that the penitent 
offender, who was sufficiently enlightened in respect to the 
true nature of the Mosaic dispensation, while he knew that by 
his offering penalties of an external nature would of course 
be remitted to him, might and probably did, by faith, look for- 
ward to the great atoning sacrifice, the antitype of that which 
he offered, for a remission of the punishment of a spiritual 
nature, which was due to his transgressions ? 

Considering now the facts in regard to this whole subject, 
as they stand disclosed in the Jewish Scriptures, who will 
venture to pronounce, that a similar arrangement under the 
general government of God in respect to men, is impossible? 
The moral purposes of God in respect to this government, 
we may cheerfully admit, are the highest purposes which are 
known to us. Bat had he no moral purposes to effect under 
the Jewish dispensation, and by the Mosaic institutes ? 
Most certainly he had. Incipient and imperfect they were 
indeed, compared with the great moral ends accomplished by 



236 THE ATONEMEKT. -C.I. 

the Gospel. Bui Still they were real. Yet God, as the 
Mjprcme lawgiver and judge of the Jews, did, in BQOSC 
remit the penalty of his law as given by HoseSt in con- 
(Uienee of a substitute for it. Now if the thing itself were 
absurd or impossible, lie could not have done it. Net ean 
we connive of any more impossibility that he should do the 
same tiling under his general government of men, than that 
he should do it under the Jewish dispensation. Wrong is not 
more really done (if there be wrong at all) in the one case, 
than in the other; and the one is therefore just as possible 
for God as the other. So far as we ean see, there is no more 
hazard to the general interests of the universe, in the admis- 
sion of vicarious sacrifice lor sinners, than there w T as to the 
Jewish commonwealth, by the admission of expiatory offer- 
ing into its system of government. 

In a word, God did admit vicarious sacrifices under his 
government of the Jews ; and an inspired apostle has taught 
us that they were, and were designed to be, types of the great 
expiatory offering made by Christ. To express it in another 
manner : That was done in ancient times upon a smaller 
scale, which at a later period was done on a larger one. The 
penalty for certain offences against the Mosaic law, was re- 
moved by the sacrifice of goats and bullocks ; and the penal- 
ty against the higher law of heaven, (if you please so to name 
it), is removed by the death of Christ. If both are by the 
arrangement of heaven, the one presents no more impossi- 
bility than the other. 

Nor can it be objected here, that the expiatory sacrifices 
of the law procured merely the remission of a civil or eccle- 
siastical penalty, which was wholly of an external nature, 
and could be inflicted by men ; but that the removal of the 
penalty due to moral turpitude, is a very different thing, and 
has a much more important bearing upon the interests of 
(iod's moral government. 1 accede to the fact that it has. 
lint this does not render an expiatory offering impossible, 
provided om mdequaU to tJte oeeasioit CO* be made. I belli 
the Scriptures teach us, that such an one has been made by 



THE ATONEMENT. 261 

the Son of God. As the end to b implished by a Sfr- 

yjmr'fl death was of afar higher and nobler nature, than 

that accomplished by the Sacrifices of the Levitical law, so 

the victim thai was to he offered, was of a rank which cor- 
responded to tlu* object to be attained. The redemption of 

men from everlasting death, (not of the .lows only but also 

of the Gentitles), was concerned with this sacrifice. Well 
then might the apostle draw the admirable comparison, which 
he has drawn in Heb. 9: 18, 1 1, between the one species of 
offering and the other. " If," says he, "the blood of bulls 
and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, 

etiiieth to the purifying of the flesh ; how Mini MORE 
shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, of- 
fered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience 
from dead works, to serve the living God." That is : * If 
the beast which perished forever under the knife of the sacri- 
ficing priest, did still, by divine appointment, make atone- 
ment for certain offences against the Mosaic law r , so that the 
penalty denounced against them was remitted, and the offen- 
der treated as though he were not guilty, how much more 
shall the holy Saviour, a victim possessed of a nobler nature 
— of a never-dying spirit — make expiation for the moral 
turpitude of offences against God as the governor of the 
world.' 

If this reasoning of the apostle be admitted, then we can 
never prove the impossibility of atonement for sin, by alleg- 
ing that no victim can be adequate to the occasion. For the 
apostle plainly declares that the sacrifice of Christ was more 
adequate to the purpose for which it was made, than the 
death of the victim under the ancient dispensation was, to 
the occasion which demanded it. 

Nor can the justice of God be alleged as constituting a 
ground of impossibility, that an expiatory offering should be 
admitted for sinners. All men, who hold that there is for- 
giveness at all with God, must of course concede that his 
justice is no more impugned by the forgiveness of sin through 
an atonement, than it w r ould be without any atonement. 



nii: at«.xi;mkxt. [disc. t. 

Consequently bo objection of this nature can be urged by 
such, against the possibility of atonement 

Nor arc the advocates of propitiatory sacrifice d to 

content themselves with merely showing that it is possible* 
They may advance farther, and venture to say, that ti 
probability of such an arrangement under the divine govern- 
or at, can in no valid manner be shown. Will its opponents 
appeal to the feelings of men in general, and declare that 
such a sacrifice is naturally revolting to the human mind? 
How then comes it to pass, that every tribe and nation, from 
the philosophic Greeks down to the roaming Tartars and 
the iiend-like race of New Zealand — every part of our de- 
graded race however ignorant or barbarous, that have at all 
acknowledged the existence of any divinity — have agreed in 
offering to him propitiatory sacrilices ? Does this universal 
custom of the mere children of nature, look as if the doctrine 
were revolting to the first principles of the human breast? 
Or does it look as if the hand of Omnipotence had enstamped 
on the very elements of our moral constitution, a susceptibili- 
ty of receiving it, a predisposition to admit it? Who will or 
can explain the origin and prevalence of vicarious sacrifices, 
on any other ground that this ? 

I proceed one step further. To me it seems plain, that 
although reason, unenlightened by revelation, never could 
have discovered a way of pardon for sin by the expiatory 
death of the Son of God, yet, when all the attributes of the 
Deity are brought into full view by the Scriptures, and the 
character of man is also developed in full, reason may then 
well give, and to preserve her character must give, her assent 
to the doctrine of pardon by expiatory sacrifice, if she finds it 
there revealed. 

God is just ; therefore he will punish sin : and if we read 
only the book of nature, must we not say too, with Seneca, 
•• therefore he cannot forgive it r" But revelation discloses 
his attribute of mercy; and mercy consists essentially in re- 
mitting the strict claims of justice, either in whole or in part. 
How then shall God possess these two attributes, and ex- 



DISC. I.] 1 Hi"- A rONEMEX P. 

ercise them in respecl to <>ur guilty rebellious race ? A 
question which "agea and generations" could not answer; a 
mystery hidden from them. A question which philosophy 
may seek in vain satisfactorily to solve. But in the cross of 
Christ — in his expiatory suffering! and death— we way find 
an answer. Here, "mercy ami truth have met together; 
right* ousness and peace have embraced each other." In the 
of Christ, a personage of such transcendent dignity 
and glory, we see the terrors of divine justice displayed in 
the most affecting manner, and are impressively taught what 
evil is due to sin. In the pardon purchased by his death, 
we contemplate the riches of divine mercy. God might have 
displayed his justice, indeed, in the world of perdition, and 
called us to contemplate it as written in characters that 
w T ould make us shudder. His mercy also he might have dis- 
played, by the absolute and unconditional pardon of sinners, 
provided no atonement had been made. But who could look 
on the radiance of his simple justice, as exhibited only in 
such a manner as I have stated, without extinguishing his 
vision forever? Or who could contemplate undiscriminating 
and unconditional mercy only, without being influenced to 
forget the awful displeasure of God against sin, or being em- 
boldened to continue in it? But in the cross of Jesus, his 
justice and his mercy are united. Here is the bright spot 
where the effulgency of the Deity converges and concenters. 
On this we may gaze with admiration, with calmness, with 
delight; for here the rays of eternal glory meet and blend, 
so as to be sweetly attempered to our vision. The bow in 
the cloud, where the glories of the sun, the brightest image 
of its Maker in the natural world, meet and mingle, and pre- 
sent to our view the delightful token that the waters of a 
flood will drown the earth no more, is but a faint emblem of 
the attempered glory which beams from the cross of Jesus, 
the token of deliverance from a flood more awful than that of 
Noah. 



DISCOURSE II 



ISAIAH LIN. f>, G. 

HE WAfl WnlMiED FOR OUR T R \ H I (. KESSION 18 J HE WAS BRUISED FOR 

01 r iniquities; Till chastisement of our peace was upon 

HIM J AND BY HIS BTRIPXS A. RE W E UK MID. Al*L WE I. IKF. SHE1 P 
HAYS <.n\l \-TK\V: WE HAVE TURNED EVERY ONE TO HIS OWN 
WAY ; AND THE LORD HATH LAID ON HIM THE INIQUITY OF US ALL. 

I have endeavoured, in the preceding discourse, to make 
such explanations as are necessary to a right understanding 
of our subject ; and to prepare the way for the introduction 
of direct proof from the Scriptures respecting the expiatory 
sacrifice of Christ. I have endeavoured also to show, that we 
cannot refer the question, whether an expiatory offering has 
been made by the Son of God for the sins of men, to the 
tribunal of philosophy. The impossibility of such an offer- 
ing, philosophy cannot prove. The fact that substitution in 
the case of penalties incurred, did for many centuries consti- 
tute a distinguishing characteristic in the administration of di- 
vine government among the Jews, must be admitted ; and 
the possibility that it may constitute a prominent feature of 
God's general government, cannot therefore be disproved. I 
have ventured even to advance a step farther, and undertak- 
en to show that the improbability of an atonement for sin can 
by no means be made out ; inasmuch as the human race at 
large are deeply impressed with the need of propitiatory sac- 
rifice. Moreover, the attributes of God and the character of 
man, as revealed in the Scriptures, render the doctrine of 
pardon for sin through the expiatory offering of Christ, by 
no means improbable. 

li' I have succeeded in my endeavours to remove obsta- 



DISC. II.] Till 241 

. which seemed to lie in the way of making an impartial 
estimate of Scripture testimony in reaped t<> the subject be- 
fore as, ami have also Bhown that the whole question must 
he referred for decision solely to the word of God, then we 
are prepared without embarrassment to pursue the inquiry: 
What is tlie testimony of revelation on this subject? 

Let me here premise a tew considerations respecting tin 
kind of appeal which I am about to make to the Scriptutt 
ami then my proof shall he very brief. For nothing can be 
plainer, than that if " all Scripture is given by inspiration of 
( Jod," then M the mouth of two or three witnesses" is enough 
to establish the point at which I aim. Of the very numer- 
ous texts, therefore, to which I might appeal, I shall select 
but a few ; and for every attentive and intelligent reader of 
the Bible, these may serve as a clue to all the rest. 

My first remark is, that every speaker and w r riter, intend- 
ing to be understood, employs, and necessarily employs, lan- 
guage in the same sense, in which those whom he addresses 
use and understand it. None will deny so plain a proposi- 
tion. Nor can it be deemed less certain, that the sacred wri- 
ters designed to be understood by those whom they addressed. 

My second remark is, that all the writers of the Old and 
New Testament were Jews ; and that all the Scriptures, with 
. very little exception, were originally addressed to Jews, or 
to churches which in part consisted of Jews. If w r e design, 
then, to come at the meaning of the sacred writers, we must 
necessarily construe their language in the same way as the 
Jews would naturally construe it, who lived in the age of the 
prophets and apostles. Nothing can be more plain and ir- 
refragable, than this maxim of interpretation. It is no part 
of the inquiry, what ideas we may affix to the language of 
Scripture, coming to read it in another tongue, in another re- 
gion, nurtured in the bosom of speculative philosophy, and 
desirous of adjusting everything to our own standard. AVjiat 

IDEAS DID TIIK PROPHETS, APOSTLES, AND EVANGELISTS 

mean to convey ? is the only proper question, for one who 

21 



242 Tin [disc. ii. 

-imply to the law and to the testimony for the grounds 

of his belief 

Let u- then call to mind, that every Jew was habituallj 

conversant with expiatory tacrificeg) with subttitution : that 
the system of substitution was inwrought into the very oon- 

Btitution of bifi religious worship ; and that all the Scripture 
language, which baa respect to the -aeriiiee of Christ, i- di- 
rectly borrowed from that which was every day used by the 
elcw. in -peaking of the sacrifices that he was required to of- 
fer. 

"With these fact- in view, we are ready to present the sub- 
ject, as it lies before OS in the Scriptures. 

Our text is fre&h in your minds, and I need net hen 
peat it. It asserts that the ' chastisement or punishment by 
which oar peace is procured, was laid upon the Saviour; 
that by his wounds we are healed; that all we ha 
astray, i. e. sinned; and that Jehovah hath laid on him the 
punishment due to us.' Other parts of the chapter, from 
which our text is taken, repeat the same idea. u For the 
transgression of my people was lie smitten," v. 8; "his soul 
[i. e. he] was made an offering for Bin/' v. 10 ; "lie shall jus- 
tify [i. e. procure pardon lor] many, for he shall bear their 
iniquities," v. 1 I ; " he hare the sin of many, and made inter- 
cession for the transgressors," v. 12. 

I only ask here, whether any man can rationally and can- 
didly indulge doubts, in what maimer the Jews whom the 
prophet addressed, must necessarily have understood this lan- 
guage ? 

In regard to the New Testament, it is so full of the doc- 
trine in question, that the only difficulty lies in making a pro- 
per selection of testimony. 

Peter has quoted some of the passages, which T have just 

Cited. Observe how he comments on this sentiment. " Who 
hi- own self, hare our Bins in his own body on the tree 

by whose stripes ye were healed," 1 Pet. 2: 24. A 

l * We were not redeemed with corruptible things .... but by 

the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and 



Tin: vtonkmknt. 213 

with ■ >t." 1 IVt. l: 18, r.». John the Baptist al 

clainw: " Behold the Lamb of God, which taketfa away the 
rid;" 1. e. the victim, who bj divine appoint- 

Dt is, through hi- expiatory death, to procure pardon foa 
men, J«'lm l: 29, So the apostle John : " The Mood of Jeeofl 
Chri h u- from all sin," 1 John 1: 7. * Who is (be 

pitiation [or propitiatory sacrifice] for our sins; and not 
•a only. I >nt also for the una of the whole world/ 1 1 John 

'. Paul abounds, everywhere, with the most glowing sen- 
timents in respect to this great point *• Foi he hath made him 
to be Bin [L e. a sin offering] for us, who knew no .^in," 1 
Cor, 5: 21. "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us," 1 
Cor. 5: 7. "In whom we have redemption through his blood, 
the forgiveness of sins," Eph. 1: 7. "Whom God hath set 
forth to he a propitiation [or propitiatory sacrifice], through 
faith in his blood .... to declare his righteousness [i. e. for 
the manifestation of his pardoning mercy], by the remission of 
sins," Rom. 3: 2o. u Christ hath redeemed us from the curse 
of the law, being made a curse for us/' Gal. 3: 13. 

It w r ere easy to proceed, and fill out my whole discourse 
with passages of the like import. But the limits which I 
have prescribed to myself forbid ; and I shall close with two 
texts more, where the resemblance, between the sacrifices 
under the law and the offering of Christ, is so brought into 
view, that it is impossible to mistake the writer's meaning. 
" For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into 
the sanctuary by the high-priest for sin, are burned without the 
camp ; wherefore Jesus also, that he might make expiation 
(uyia<?r { ) for the people with his own blood, suffered without 
the gate," lleb. 13: 11, 12. In other words, what was done 
in the type, was fulfilled in the antitype. Again: " For if 
the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of a heifer, 
sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh ; 
how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the 
eternal Spirit offered up himself without spot to God, purge 
your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God!" 
Heb. 9. 13, 14. 



2 It THE ATONEMENT. [DISC. II. 

I ttk now of any candid man, who baa some proper con- 
a j.tion of the manner in which the Jews employed langn 
of this nature, nothing more, tlian that laying his hand on Hi 
heart, and making the appeal to him who sear hat 

heart, he would inquire, whether a dew, addressing Jews 
with such language as this, could expect or wish to be under- 

odin any other way, than as inculcating the doctrine of 
siihitinn. or the tocfiatory suffering* of Jesue 

I liave done with citing testimony; lor if what I have 
addnce<l doei not establish the fact, that the sacred wrii' 
did mean to imadcate the doctrine in question, then plainly, 
the many ftCOreti of additional texts which might be quoted. 
Will not prove it ; nor any language, I must add, which it 
would he in the power of a human being to employ. 

As a proof of this I only advert to the maimer in which 
all plain unlettered Christians have always understood these 
texts, from the time of the apostles down to the present mo- 
ment. They never had a doubt on the subject of their 
meaning, unless some speculating theologian excited it; and 
of themselves, I do believe, they never would have one to 
the end of time. 

Baft I may make an appeal of another kind, in regard to 
the manner in which this language is and must be understood, 
by men deeply versed in the idiom of the Scriptures, but 
wholly indifferent in regard to the fact, whether one or anoth- 
er doctrine is there taught, because they do not recognize the 
authority of Scripture to decide upon such matters. The most 
distinguished oriental and biblical scholar now living, who dis- 
claims all belief in anything supernatural in the Scriptures, 
and through the inlluence of his philosophy maintains that a 
miracle is impossible, and who therefore cannot be said to 
have any prejudices in favour of the doctrine of atonement, 

^. at the dose of a masterly explanation of the language 
of the chapter from which my text is taken, that "most He- 
brew readers, who had once been acquainted with offerin 
and substitution, mibt m < BB8ABILY understand the VPOrdfl of 
an chapter u asserting it ; and there is no DOOTT," he ad 



Till ArONKMFNT. 245 

u that the apottoli rt UkUk propitia- 

eertainly rests, in a maiinor altogether 
preeminent, 00 tliis -round." (GeMQMMj Comm. uber Jettft- 
anu i.m.) 

B much for the testimony of Scripture and for the man- 
in which the untamed and the learned have understood 

ir, and do -till understand it. 

w oome, thenj ii' my proof is valid, to the simple alter- 
native, either to admit the doctrine in question, or to reject 
the authority of the sacred writers. There is no other path 
which can be taken, unless it can be fairly shown, that the 
interpretation which lias been given to the language cited 
\ e, is not agreeable to the usage of speech among the 
Jews; an undertaking which, I am well persuaded, is des- 
perate; and one which no critic, no philologist, can ever 
omplish, until the whole history of Jewish ideas in re- 
ct to these subjects, during former ages, is blotted out from 
the records of the world. I repeat it, then, for I do most 
solemnly believe it, that w r e must either receive the doctrine 
of substitution and expiatory offering by the death of Christ, 
or virtually lay aside the authority of the Scriptures, and lean 
upon our own philosophy. 

III. I come now, according to the plan of my discourses, to 
consider some of the objections made against the doctrine of 
the atonement. 

I do not feel it to be important, here, to dwell upon them 
at length. There is only one method in which any legiti- 
mate objections can be made, by those who admit the author- 
ity of revelation. This is, to show that the language of 
Scripture, according to Jewish idiom, does not mean what I 
have interpreted it as meaning. l>ut this mode of objecting, 
the speculators and skeptics who have rejected the doctrine 
of substitution, have been very careful to avoid. Their re- 
fuge is philosophy. They raise doubts about "equivalency ; 
they must see, as philosophers, the why and the how in re- 
spect to this mysterious transaction. Whatever pertains to 
this part of the subject, however, I have sufficiently dwelt 

21* 



24G THE ATONEMENT. 

Wj/m already. I shall therefore only glance here, at MBi of 
the hmmI popular Methods employed to oppose the doctrine 
of substitution, or to explain it away. 

Obj, 1. 'An atonement for sin is unnecessary, (iod can 
forgive it as well without an atonement as with one ; and 
Ike doctrine if true, divests the supreme Being of the attri- 
bute of mercy. If the full debt i- paid, where is there any 
room lor mercy in forgiving it?' 

But who is to decide the point, whether God can forgive 
sin without an atonement? The natural possibility of h^I 
admit : that is, I admit that as sovereign of the universe, and 
poss essin g omnipotence, he might pardon sin, (if he had 
judged it best to do so), without the intervention of a suffer- 
ing substitute. Bat this is no real part of our question. 
What has he judged best, is the only proper inquiry; and 
how can this be answered? Only, as we have already seen, 
by revelation. But that revelation tells us, it is "the Lamb 
of (iod which taketh away the sins of the world ;" that " there 
is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby 
A\e mast be saved, nor is there salvation in any other," Acts 
1: 12; that "there is one God, and one mediator between 
God and man, the man Christ Jesus who gave himself a 
ransom for all," 1 Tim. 2: 5, G ; and that "all have sinned 
land come short of the glory of God," and consequently, must 
be ''gratuitously justified through the redemption that is in 
JedUS Christ, whom God hath set forth as a propitiatory 
8: 23— 25. 

The point then is put at rest by the Bible. And when 
those who doubt, admonish us that it would be unb '/in 

teepeet to the Supreme Being, and derogatory to his charac- 
ter, to suppose that the sufferings of Christ, an innocent vic- 
tim, were deemed by him to be necessary or acceptable; I 
answer simply with Paul : " For it N < ami; him, for whom 
are all thing-, and by whom are all things, in order to bring 
many ><m< to glory, to make perfect the Captain of their sal- 
vation through Bufferings," Ileb. 2: 1<>. 

When they further allege, also, that the attribute of mercy 



mi 217 

virtually denied to the Suj Being! by the <upp«>MtioQ 

•in Atonement, they can my this, only on the ground that 

an i'xa. •[ ;md literal equivalent for the penal part of the di- 

vine law. both as to the kind and quantity of suffering, lias 

n demanded of the substitute; a doctrine incapable, as we 

ipported : and to meet the difficulties of 

which. 1 certainly will not incur any responsibility. The 

rim iptural statement of substitution, is not liable to this 

ction. 

i. ' The motives to strenuous effort in order to live 
a virtuous and holy life, are greatly weakened by the doc- 
trine in question.' 

This objection is as old, at least, as the time of Paul ; and 
it is met by him in such a manner as to save us, at the pres- 
ent time, from the necessity of any effort to make an adequate 

! v. After representing the death of Christ (Rom. iii.) as 
the only foundation of the sinner's hope, he meets this very 
objection, which he knew would be made by those who 
doubted his doctrine, in these words ; " Do we then make 

J the law, through faith ?" i. e. do we diminish the force 
of moral precept or obligation, by preaching the doctrine of 
gratuitous pardon through atoning blood? To which he an- 
swer- at once : " God forbid; rather we establish the law," 
i. e. we enforce its obligations by higher motives than before 
existed. After illustrating, by various instances, the fact 
that such a method of justifying sinners is presented to view 
in the Jewish Scriptures, he resumes the consideration of the 
objection. lie represents the objector as suggesting : " What 
shall we say then ? Shall we continue in sin that grace may 
abound? God forbid," he answers again, " ho w shall we 
who are dead to sin, any longer continue to practise it ?" 
Rom. 6: 1,2. lie then goes on to show, (which is indeed a 
most conclusive and irrefragable answer to the whole objec- 
tion), that Christianity, from its very nature, implies of ne- 

sity the mortification of all our sinful passions and appe- 
tites ; it is itself, in its very essence, a principle directly 



2 LB THE A I XT. [DISC. II. 

hostile to them, and therefore never can indulge or foster 
them. 

All the difficulty of objectors here, arises from overlook- 
ingthe whole of this grand point Atoning blood. niJfiniJTf 
and gratuitous aa the favours arc which it proffers, never prof- 
fered one unconditionally. The sinner must be huml 
and penitent^ who is sprinkled with it. The grace of God, 

which has appeared to all men through a Saviour's death, in- 
culcates on them, without exception, the absolute nee 
of denying all ungodliness and worldly lusts. It urges this, 
BS the New Testament most amply .-hows, by excitements to 
virtue of a higher nature, and by penalties for offences more 
awful, than any system of law could offer or impose. 

Obj. 3. k There is no need of laying so much stress upon 
the death of Christ, or of regarding him as our substitute in 
any sense, lie may very properly be called our Saviour 
and Redeemer, inasmuch as by Ins instructions, he has taught 
us the way in which we may acceptably obey God.' 

That to give instruction was a part of Christ's errand on 
earth, as our Redeemer, I cheerfully admit. But that this 
the great work, which marked him exclusively as the 
Saviour of sinners, it is quite impossible to prove. What ! 
Have we not other instructors, such too as were inspired, as 
well as he i Did he w T rite the New Testament ? Did he, 
who taught about three years, who k was never out of Pales- 
tine, and made but few disciples, teach as much, and labour 
with as much success, bs Paul, who preached about thirty 
year-, and traversed the world to proclaim the messages of 
salvation ? If the simple fact of giving instruction, of making 
disciples, of successfully inculcating the truth, makes a Re- 
deemer, then who has the best title to that appellation, Paul, 
or (I .-peak it with reverence) Jesus of Nazareth? And to 
whom should the songs of the redeemed in heaven be direct- 
ed ? Have we not, too, on such ground as this, just as many 
redeemers a- we have, or have had, religious teacher- ? 

OBJ. 1. • The death of Christ was a seal or conlirmation 



Hi 

of the truth, by which \v< nlightened and saved. It i< 

unnecessary to consider what tin- Seripture f its effica- 

imounting to any more than this. 1 

[s this so i Then was Stephen, and James, and P< 
■ad Paul, and other martyr to the cause of truth, who 

has Beated his testimony to it by his own blood, our re de em - 
gr loo. St i thru how the knee to then for this testt- 
in<» | ascribe our salvation, at least in part, to them? 

And the redeemed in heaven — do they aseribe salvation to 
marti/rs. when they cast their crowns at the feet of the Lamb, 
and sing: Thou wast slain, and km ! us to God by 

tiiv bid 

i )r..i. '). < Christ was our Redeemer, in that lie has by his 
•■ample set before us an acceptable way of worship, ami 

Jit ne, by personal obedience both active and passive, 
we may please God.' 

The force of his example to inculcate virtue and piety, we 
ought most gratefully to acknowledge. But the redeeming 
efficacy of it, I cannot by any means admit. A most conclu- 
sive reason against such a view of it, is found in the fact, 
that while his example could, of course, have an influence 
only during his life, and on times after those in which ho 
lived, his atonement is represented as reaching back to the 
very origin of our race. Thus Paul : " If the blood of bulls 

and goats sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh ; how 

much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal 
spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your con- 
science from dead works, to serve the living God. And for 
this cause, [i. e. because his expiatory sacrifice possesses a 
spiritual or moral efficacy of such a nature], he is the Media- 
tor of the new covenant, so that, his death having taken 
place to make expiation (st$ im%VTQ«HHv) for sins committed 
under the former covenant^ they who are called may receive 
the promised blessings of the heavenly inheritance," Ileb. 9: 
18 — lo. That his death is here plainly considered by the 
apostle, as having a retrospective view and influence, is clear 
from what follows. After observing that the Jewish sacri- 



250 mi: ATQMBDCNT. [disc. II. 

teded to be often repeated, he goes on to gay : M The 
death of Christ once only was sufficient ; it' this wen Mi 
BO| M he adds, M then he must pftoi have suffered ^//c 

idation of the world!* That is. the object which his 
death hai now accomplished] the expiatory sacrifice which 
he has now made, must be adequate for men in all far 

the past, as well as for the future ; otherwise Christ nasi 
hai Buffered, since the foundation of the world, Ileb. 

9: 25, 86. 

Exactly to the same purpose, is the sentiment in the third 
chapter of the epistle to the Romans. After asserting that 
God had sent forth Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice, Paul 
adds : " To declare or manifest his gratuitous method of jus- 
tification by the forgiveness of sins in past times, [or, so that 
the sins of former times might be remitted], through the di- 
vine lenity; and to declare his gratuitous method of justifica- 
tion, at the present time," Rom. 3: 25, 26. The opposition 
of present time here, to the past in the preceding clause, 
show- beyond all reasonable doubt, as it seems to me, that 
the object of the apostle is to assert, not only the influence 
of Christ's propitiatory sacrifice, but its extension to past 
times as well as to present ; and of course, the sentiment is 
the same with that which is disclosed in the epistle to the 
Hebrew-. 

Here then we may take our stand in defence of vicarious 
'■cure against being moved by suggestions, that <?x- 
tmple is the great point in the Redeemer's work. Here, at 
all events, is vicarious influence, if there be influence on ages 
that have passed by. And that the apostle means to assert 
this, appear- to me as clear as any other sentiment deducible 
from his writings. 

OBJ. 6. The last objection which I shall notice, is, ' that 
to represent the innocent as suffering for the guilty, is a vir- 
tual impeachment of divine equity) and of those principles of 
moral government which the ruler of the universe has estab- 
lish 

To him. who acknowledges the Scriptures as a divine rev- 



ii.] Tin. \ roNi -j:>\ 

i, I reply simply in their boguge: "II.' hath made 
him to be i who kn ' i. <•. the innocent 

lias sir guilty, 2 Cor. 5: -Jl. - But Christ bath 

iflered for sins, ihejuM for the unjust, that he ini'_ r lit 
Mag ii- to God/ 1 l Pet & I8i Such is thefatdt; and I 

ask : Is God unjust? and do the Scriptures reprfe- 
sent him to be bo, because of this ? 

n to those who do not acknowledge the authority of 

the Scripture-, to the BOber Kationali-t or Theidt, I might 

greater difficulty still. Children suffer on account 
of the crimes of their parents; nations, on account of the 
•s of their rulers ; and that, without the consent of the 
sufferers. Yet, by their own acknowledgment, divine justice 
and the principles of moral government are not impeachable 
on this account. Are they so then, if Christ voluntarily, and 
out of pity and love, suffered the just for the unjust? 

l>ut I must leave the examination of objections. I dismiss 
them all with this single remark. When it shall be shown 
that the language of the Scriptures must not, according to 
rules of interpretation which are fundamental and capable of 
demonstration, be construed as conveying, and as designed to 
convey, the idea of a vicarious or expiatory offering by the 
death of Christ ; when it shall be shown that there is even a 
possibility, that the Jews could have understood it in a dif- 
ferent way ; then we may consider the doctrine of substitu- 
tion as doubtful : but never till then, unless our own conjec- 
tural reasonings are to usurp the place of the sacred writers, 
in deciding upon this matter. 

Having thus briefly canvassed the topics proposed for con- 
sideration at the commencement of my discourses, I shall close 
with a few reflections on the subject which has been dis- 
ed. 

1. The doctrine of the atonement is a fundamental doc- 
trine in the Christian system j and that which distinguishes 
it, in a peculiar manner, from all other systems of religion. 

It is fundamental ; because, often as belief in a Saviour is 
urged in the New Testament, and urged as the indispensa- 



Tin: AT- MM, [DISCL II. 

bic condition of salvation, equally often m belief in il 
viour, as our atoning sacrifice, urged ; and equally conspi 
ous is tlii- point, in the whole system of the Christian re- 
ligion. It is aot merely, or principally, in Jesus asooi I 
er, our example, or as having sealed the truth of hi 
ny by his own blood, thai we are called to believe ; but prin- 
cipally in him, in that very character iu which ho was "to 
the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishnai 

while unto them who are saved, he is wisdom and righteo 
neSfl and sauctilication and redemption*" What says Paul 
to the Corinthians ? u I am determined not to know anything 
among you save Jesus Chrisl and him CRUCIFIED,' 1 1 Cor. 
2: 2- Why Christ CRUCIFIED? Why not Christ as a 
teacher, an example, a martyr, a prophet ? Plainly because 
whatever; was done by Christ in all these characters, it would 
have utterly tailed to accomplish the design of saving men, 
unless his expiatory death had also taken place. Christ 
crucified, then, is the very point on which ultimately hang 
all the hopes of our sinful race. So Paul viewed it, wl 
lie said: " Cod forbid that I should glory, save in the CB< 
of Christ," GaL 0: 11. So we too ought to view it. Other 
Systems of religion teach the existence, attributes, and moral 
government of Cod. This does Judaism in its modern form ; 
this does Theism ; this does even MobammedisnL Other 
Stems inculcate our social and relative duties. The re- 
ligion of Ilindoostan exhibits the Deity in a state of incarna- 
tion ; so that even this is not in all respects peculiar to Chris- 
tianity. Hut no religion save the Christian, exhibits the in- 
carnate WOKD, suffering, bleeding, dying for sinners; a 
Lamb of God to take away the .-in of the world. This is at 
once the glory and the hope of the Christian system. This 
is what marks it with a peculiarity, which makes it exceed- 
ingly distinct from, and superior to, all otln in-. Give 
up this point, and you confound the broad line of distinction, 
which separates it- from all else that is called religion. Sailer 
this SUQ even to be eclipsed, and the race of man is covered 
with gloom Quench his glory, and we are at once involved 



DISC. II.] THE ATONEMENT. 253 

in ten-fold more than Egyptian night; we are doomed to 
Wander in the shadow of death, on which no morning r 
will lawn, nor one gleam of radiance ever fall to alle- 

viate it- t» 

t. I remark, finally, that a Saviour Buffering R>r as, the 
rnal Word, God manifest in the flesh, and in our nature 
offering an expiatory sacrifice, presents to the moral sympa- 
thies of our race, higher excitements to virtue and piety, and 

more powerful dissua8ives from Bin, than any other considera- 
tion which the Christian religion proffers. 

I am quite confident, that I might safely undertake to estab- 
lish the correctness of this observation, from the nature of our 
moral constitution, and the manner in which we are most sue- 
fully influenced to engage in the mortification of our sin- 
ful appetites, and in the practice of virtue. But I will not 
make such an appeal, because I choose to rest the whole sub- 
ject on the Scriptures and the actual experience of Christians. 

Paul, when speaking on the topic now introduced, says: 
* God commendeth It is love toward ns, in that while we were 
yet sinners, Christ died for us," Rom. 5: 8. " Greater love 
than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his 
friends;" but Christ has far surpassed this. The same apos- 
tle says : "When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God 
by the death of his Son," Rom. 5: 10. Here then is a con- 
sideration which will make every heart to vibrate, that is not 
lost to all sense of gratitude and of mercy. How many thou- 
sands have heard the thunders of Sinai unmoved ; and even 
while their awful power has made the very ground to rock on 
which they stood, how many have still turned a deaf ear to all 
the admonitions and threatenings which they conveyed, and 
grown more desperate in their resolutions to persist in rebellion 
against God ! Yet, after all, they have been melted down by 
the proclamation of Jesus' dying love, and have fallen as hum- 
ble suppliants at the foot of his cross. Yes, we may say with 
John : M Hereby perceive we the love of ( Sod, because he laid 
down his life for us, w 1 John 3: 1G. And again : k> In this was 
manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent 

22 



THI-. A I < ».\ EMEU I [disc. II. 

his only begotten Son into the world, t lint ire might have life 
through him.'' But on what point did this love principally 
rest ? Where did i* 1 1 the glories of benevolence cooeesfc 
The same apoetle immediately informs us: M Herein ii love, 
not that we loved God, bat that he loved us, and sent his Sun 

to be the propitiation tor our -ins ;'' i. e. when we were enemi 
to God, Christ died as onr propitiatory offering, and nu 
reconciliation for ns, l John ;>: ( j, 10. Herein is love indeed* 

and hard niu<t be that heart which ean resist the proposal of it ; 
tor if any consideration ean avail to subdue the stubborn spirit 
of the human breast, this must he the one which has the most 
powerful influence ot' all. 

I appeal to foot When the missionaries of the United 
Brethren undertook to preach the eternal power and Godhead 

of the Deity, a> display. -d in the creation, to the poor benighted 
Cireenlanders, they listened, they gazed, they turned away 
with silent neglect. The faithful disciples urged on them 
-till more vehemently the attributes of the Creator and Judge 
o\' all, and their moral accountability to him. They listened ; 
but their hearts remained like the eternal ice, with which their 
region is overspread. Compassion for their perishing condi- 
tion made the servants of Jesus more urgent still. One other 
chord there was, which perhaps, when touched, might be made 
to vibrate. They touched it with a faithful hand. They pro- 
claimed to the poor, gazing, perishing heathen, a Saviour, 
bleeding groaning, dying for them. They pointed them to 
his bleeding hands, his wounded side; they bid them look to 
that Lamb of (iod. which taketh away the sin of the world. 
The sight prostrated them to the earth. Their stubborn hearts 
melted like wax before the fire. They fell at the foot of a dy- 
ing Saviours cross, andVxclaimed : Lord Jesus, save us or 
we perish forever I 

Xes, and millions of the ransomed, who have gone to Zion 

with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads, can testify 

the power ot' thi- mighty truth on their rebellious hearts. ( rod 

commended his love toward them, by disclosing a Saviour 

dying on their acronnt, that they could no longer resist the 



c. n.] Tin: at«>\! mi 2~>~) 

invitations of his n It was a mi«;h . mi, roshing 00 

with overwhelming power, and bearing everything bo* 

l\>n> it. 

Thai Jesus died, and died form); that he was our si ksti- 
i ; that his tender compassion did take us into view indi- 
vidually : that he took OUT nature in order to enter most inti- 
mately, most endearingly, into our sympathies, and prop 

himself To us under the most attractive form ; is the view whieh 
Paul took of the Redeemer's work. He was not an isolated 

monument of Buffering, and of Qod's displeasure against sin- 
ner- ; Dot merely a Blgn that sin could he pardoned, by which 
only an abstract testimony could be given, like that which the 

rainbow gives of Go6?s covenant to drown the earth no more — 
^ mbol which might have served equally well for angels or 
for men. No ; " Verily lie did not assist the angels, hut the 
seed of Abraham." Man was the object — the only object — 
of his incarnation, sufferings, and death. Wherefore it be- 
hoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that 
he might be a merciful and faithful high-priest in things per- 
taining unto God, to make reconciliation for the sins of his 
people. For in that he himself suffered, being tempted, he is 
able also to succour those that are tempted," Ileb. 2: 16 — 18. 
what pains is here taken to represent the suffering Sa- 
viour as participating in our nature, and entering with the 
most tender Sympathy into all our wants and woes. Is this 
to propose him as a mere example of suffering, cold, distant, 
abstract ; or is it to make him such a high-priest as we needed, 
one who can be touched with a feeling for our infirmities, hav- 
ing been tempted in all points as we are ? Speak, ye whose 
hearts have been melted by a Saviour's love, and tell us. V 
ye who live amid the horrors of eternal winter and storm ; or 
ye, who roam in deserts parched beneath a burning sun ; all 
ye, who once were without God and without hope in the world, 
aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the 
covenant of promise, speak, and say : Is not this the Saviour 
you need ; the Saviour who has cheered your desponding 
hearts ; who has opened to you the prospect of glory ? Is 



25G THE ATONEMENT. [DISC. II. 

not this he whom your souls love? Speak, ye redeemed, i 
circling his throne above, and casting your erowas at his fc 

Is not this D6 who drew your souls to him by bonds of Lo 
Stronger than death, which many waters could not quench, nor 

floods drown ? Hark I I hear the notes of that song, which 
fills all the regions of heaven with harmony. It echoes hack 

to this distant world: " Tuou avast slain, and iia>t ke- 
dkkmkd us to GOD r.v thy BLOOD, out of every kindred 
and tongue and people and nation, and hast made us kings 
and priests unto our God forever and ever." O for a heart 
and tongue to unite with this grateful, happy throng, and be- 
gin on earth the notes which we hope to sing, through ever- 
lasting ages, in the world above ! 

Fear not, my brethren, who are to preach this precious Sa- 
viour to a perishing world, fear not that the declaration of his 
atoning blood will ever palsy the moral energies of the soul. 
What says that great apostle, who won more souls to Jesus 
than any other herald of his salvation has ever done ? " The 
love of Christ constraineth us." Bat why did it constrain him, 
and to do what ? " It constraineth us, because we thus judge, 
that if one died for all, then were all dead ;" i. e. it constrains 
us, because, when we were dead in trespasses and sins, Christ 
died to redeem us. What follows 1 He died for us, " that 
they which live, should Jtencefortlt no more live unto themselves, 
but unto him who died for them and who rose again" Preach 
the same doctrine : it must forever have the same influence — 
the same mighty, overpowering, saving influence — on every 
heart that receives it. Proclaim to a perishing world (/lad ti- 
dings — glad tidings of great joy. Jesus died for them. Jesus 
can and will save them, if they accept the offers of his mercy. 
Glory in nothing hut his cross. Be not turned aside from 
preaching him crucified^ by any scorn and contumely on the 
one hand, or cold and speculative philosophy on the other. 
This doctrine is the power of God unto salvation to all who 
believe. Proclaim it then to a world perishing in iniquity. 
Proclaim it to the very ends of the earth. It will force open 
the prison doors. It will liberate the captives. It will scatter 



DISC. II.] TIIK UhNKMKNT. 267 

heavenly glory over our benighted world. It will call the dead 
to life. It will convert thii gieel Aceldama into the puritan 

of (tO(1. This boundless valley of dry hones will beeome the 

scene of« boondleu ■ resurrection to life, 

I thank God, whOM providence has so fang detained me 
from this sacred place,* that 1 have now enjoyed another op- 
portunity of testifying to you my convictions in respect to a 
Saviour'- dying love. It' I should never aiiain be permitted 
this as the last and highe8l expression of my 
affection to him and to you. I ask for no other privilege on 
earth, but to make known the efficacy of his death ; and none 
in heaven, but to be associated with those who ascribe salva- 
tion to his blood. Am in. 

* For some time, previously to the composition and delivery of these 
Discourses, the writer of them had been prevented, by long continued 
infirmity, from the delivery of Sermons in the pulpit 



22 



THE LAMB OF GOD. 



[Tin following Sermon wa> delivered in the Chapel of the Andowr 
Tk&aL Seminary. OB the last Sahhath of the Winter Tern of 184ft, The 

Student- made a request that I would publish it. by including it in the 

little volume which they had learned I was ahout to republish. I 1mm- 

tated. tor a while, about complying with their request; because l 

afraid that thi- DisCOUTSC might he deemed a repetition, in some m 
sure at lca-t. of the preceding ones. It WBS Composed and delivered. 

without any reference to publication. On a renew of the subject, it has 

seemed to me. that the former disCOUrsefl Stand related to this, as a wJiole 

due- to a jowl They discuss the subject genericaUy ; the following D 

Course, in B 8pec{fic manner, and in reference to an important and con- 
troverted text of Scripture. What led to the composition of the latter 
was. the reading of F. Ltckfa < , ->mu«nt<iri) upon the text, who lias ex- 
pended much effort and ingenuity in order to .-how. that the expiatory 
death of Christ and redemption by it are not brought into prominent 
view, by the passage in question. Haying myself formed a different opin- 
ion, I have endeavoured, in the following discourse, to give my reast 
for it. I have pre fe rred to do this in an exegetuxd way : believing fully 
that this method of preaching is occasionally of great importance, and 
has a powerful tendency to excite in Christians SSl active spirit of inquiry 

respecting the meaning of Scripture. At any rate, this mode of preach- 
ing conduct- US immediately to the fountain-head of all true doctrine. 

In respect to repetition of things already said, the reader must expert 
somewhat of this nature with regard to certain particulars. My audi- 
ence were almost entirely different, when this last Sermon was delivered, 
from my former one, and knew little or nothing of my two former Dis- 
cour.-es on the Atonement. To them, therefore, nothing in the follow- 
ing Discourse wore even the appearance of repetition. In publishing it, 
I should like to avoid this appearance in the view of readers at the pres- 
ent time, if it were feasible; hut I find that I eannnot do this without 
tearing the discourse asunder, and reducing it to a fragmentary state. 
Change- in it th ere for e I have not made, excepting a few mere verhal 

alteration-. Discourses of such a nature, designed for popular assem- 
blies, are often injured by tiling away and polishing. I have undertaken 
nothing of the sort, on the present occasion. A good reason for it is, 
that I did not wish to change the phase of the Discourse, so as to make 
it different from that which interested my audience, or from a popular 
d is co ur se on an occasion of Cbanwunioi S My audience, however, 

Wai composed of ShHJmts; and this will account for the use of a few 

expressions and allusions, dial [should have changed or omitted, be- 
fore another and different audience. I now retain these, for reasons of 
the lame nature as those ahove stated. — M. S-] 



S E B M O N 



JOHN I. 9ft 

[OLD Tin: LAMB OF GOD, WHICH IAKHTH away I hi; SIN OP 

tin: WORLD!* 

t.kal inquiries naturally present themselves to our 
minds, on reading such a declaration as this. By whom ivas 
it first made t On what occasion f And what is the exact 
meaning which it was designed to convey ? 

It was made by John the Baptist, the announcing herald 
and forerunner of the true Messiah. The birth of this per- 
sonage was foretold by an angel. In some respects it was 
supernatural. The character of John was an extraordinary 
one. Our Saviour says of him, that " he was more than a 
prophet ;" and that " among those born of woman, a greater 
than John the Baptist had not arisen;" (Matt. 11: 7 — 11). 
It is a moral greatness, beyond a doubt, to which this decla- 
ration of the Saviour specially refers ; but on other grounds 
it would be easy to vindicate a high rank for John. Of all 
the prophets, he only was the immediate forerunner of Christ ; 
and he only was exclusively charged with the duty of an- 
nouncing the immediate appearance of the promised Messiah. 
To him only was it vouchsafed to make a change in the tenor 
of the Mosaic religion, and to baptize into a new and prepara- 
tory dispensation. The persons, who by their office are 
nearest to the king, in respect to his royal acts, are of course 
his highest officers. And such was the place of John. 

His character was of the order of Elijah, and Elisha, and 
Isaiah. He was a fearless and uncompromising reformer. 

* Preached oil the occasiou of administering the Lord's Supper, 



202 Tin: LAMB of cod. 

Withal, strange m it may seen to ns, be was Linglj 

popular among the dews. r I^]i<- secret of Una undoubtedly is, 
thai he announced the Messiah as immediately eoning, under 
whose reign the whole Jewish nation were then Hipmiiing 
deliverance from a foreign yoke, and an elevated rank amo 
the nations of the earth. Panting with strong desire for the 

attainment of both these objects, multitudes flocked to John 
from all parts of Jndea. U AU Jndea and Jerusalem," says 
the evangelist, u went out to John in order that they might 
be baptised." Among them went Jesus himself, now about 
thirty years of a 

This lead- us easily to answer our second question, vi/. 
On wind occasion were the Word* of our text uttered . ? 

They were spoken in presence- of that immense multitude 
who surrounded John, and were addressed to them. They 
were spofeen the next day after John had baptized Jesus in 
the presence of all the people who flocked to him ; they were 
uttered, of course, after the multitudes who were there had 
seen the Holy Spirit descending from heaven as a dove, and 
resting upon Jesus ; and after a voice from Heaven had pro- 
claimed : " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
pleased. 

John was now near the completion of his work. Jesus 
was thenceforth to enter on his oihcial duties, and to set up 
that kingdom which John had so often announced. In this 
state of things, John introduced to the multitudes around him 
the exalted personage, whom he had by baptism consecrated 
to his holy office. Only a single sentence from his introduc- 
tory speech has been recorded ; but that comprises, one may 
well say, the substance of a long discourse: "BEHOLD Tin: 

LAMB OF (,01>, WHICH TAKHTII AWAY Till: SIN OF TIM 

would!" 

This brings ns, in the third place, to inquire into the SI 
meaning of such an a n nuueiatiou. 

If John, a- We believe, was commissioned by heaven to in- 
troduce the BCsSSiah to the Jew-, we must regard the declara- 
tion by which he performs this duty, as containing truth, and 



mi i.am' od. Ml 

thing but truth. To no prophet or priest, except to the 
ro needed the honour ami tin* privil 
baiting a Forerunner or herald to prepare ike way tor hit ap- 

Hvanci Vet John, who was greater than all that had pre- 
ceded him, considers himself M entitled to no higher pk 

than that of a menial Mivant, in comparison with the <1. \;i 
rank of Christ, ami DDoel readily acknowledges the claims of 
the newly baptized Saviour to the honour, homage, confi- 
dence, and obedience of all men. ^<>t only had no prophet, no 
priest, no king, before Jesus of Nazareth, ever been introcta 
to the J< R ish [" ople in such a manner ; but it never had beCC 
announ lrerning any one of them, that he was to re- 

move or take away the sins of even the Jewish nation, much 

3 the sins of the whole world. A sacrifice of a more ex- 
alted nature and of greater efficacy than any which had been 
or could be offered by them, was needed in order 
to purify the conscience from dead works, and to fit the of- 
ferer for an acceptable service of the living God. 

John had often and most earnestly urged upon the Jews 
the duty of repentance, and assured them that nothing short 
of this could prepare them for the due reception of the Mes- 
siah. Now, when Jesus makes his appearance in order to 
enter upon the duties of his station, John discloses to them 
the great object which is to be accomplished by him. The 
pardon of sin — the removal of both the penalty and the power 
of sin — was that object. Mere repentance, important as it 
was and is, can never of itself remove the penalty of a broken 
law. It does not atone for sins already committed ; it only 
prepares the penitent to avoid transgression for the future, by 
inspiring a hatred of sin, as well as a sorrow for it. John did 
not tell the Jews, that if they repented they would be forgiven 
because of their repentance. lie urged repentance upon them, 
as the indispensable condition of being made partakers of the 
blessings which Christ was to be8lOW. When he had done 
all that he was commissioned to do, after he had baptized 
and exhorted to immediate repentance, he publicly and .sol- 
emnly announces to all his converts, and to the world, that 



264 TnE LAMB OF GOD. 

they are u to look to the Lamb of God. in order thai their 
Bins might be taken away." 

But who or what is the La?ab of (rod? Why does John 
give to JeSUS such an appellation? 

I know of hut two lights in which this matter can he view- 
ed. The literal sense is out of all question, in this be- 
cause the appellation is given to a person, and a lamb in a 
literal sense is not a perpon. Of course the word lamb 
involves a comparison or simile. There are two ways, now, 
in which a comparison may be made ; the one has respect 
merely to disposition or character; the other has its basis 
in the fact, that lambs were so extensively employed, and on 
the most important occasions, as propitiatory or sin-offerings, 
under the ancient dispensation. 

As to the first source of comparison, innocence, meekness, 
and unresisting submission to harsh treatment, are characteris- 
tic in an eminent degree of a konb. It is, even among us, one 
of our most familiar and forcible images, employed to designate 
a combination of such attributes or virtues. It is possible, I 
admit, that John might apply the appellation of lamb to Jesus, 
in order to indicate that such characteristics as 1 have just 
named, belonged in a peculiar manner to him. So had Isaiah 
done before him : " He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, 
and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not 
his mouth;" (Is. 58: 7). Had the object of John been 
merely to set forth the meek and patient virtues of Jesus 
amidst persecutions and sufferings, he doubtless might have 
spoken of him as a lamb, and with much significance. ]>ut 
how would Mich a view of his words agree with the rest of 
our text? He IS not merely a lamb — but u a Lamb of God;" 
and not only so, but "he takes away the sin of the world." 
Now the fact that Jesus was innocent, and meek, and mild, 
and patient, and Unresisting when forced to suffering, 18 con- 
nected, when considered by itself, in no intelligible manner 
with taking <nnijj the sin of the world. There were doubt- 
less many pious persofts in that a>scnibly which John ad- 



Till: LAMB OF GOD. 

I, who were in a good degree of the same meek and 
patient character, and might be called, m Jew call* hi* Irae 
followers, lambs of hid Father's flock. Bat this < I i < 1 not make 
them $aviour$ of the world from lin. If Jesus was perfectly 
innocent, and meek, and unresisting — all this might help t<> 
form an elevated and very amiable character. It might qual- 
ify him t<> be an excellent prophet and teacher. lint if he 
II mainly referred to, in this character, by the text before us 
then how can we help the feeling that John has been unfor- 
tunate in the choice of his metaphorical language? In re- 
i the announcement of * teacher or prophet we should 
expect to hear something indicative of acutenrss and wi>dom 
and eloquence. If John means to designate an accomplished 
teacher, we are prepared to hear him call Jesus a light, a sun, 
a guide, or to describe him by some other simihir appellation. 
But to choose a lamb as the symbol of intelligence, wisdom, 
eloquence, power of instruction — is one of the last choices 
that we should expect any man to make. When the Saviour 
sends out his disciples to teach, he exhorts them to " be wise 
as serpents, and harmless as doves." We understand this at 
once. But if John the Baptist meant to characterize Christ, 
as " taking away the sins of the world" merely by his saga- 
cious and discriminating instruction, he has made choice of a 
word which does not in the remotest manner convey to our 
minds any image of this sort. The rhetorical argument from 
this passage is therefore invincibly against such a supposition. 
The moral argument is still stronger. If Jesus as an in- 
structor is only, or principally, the Saviour of the world, why 
have not Paul, and other apostles, and evangelists, and pro- 
phets, yea, and all preachers of the gospel too, the same reason 
to be called the saviours of men ? Let it be that Jesus had 
a preeminence and higher qualifications ; yet their work and 
office is the same in kind as his. Nay, I may go still further : 
If the light actually diffused abroad over the world, is the 
principal means and the measure of taking away sin, then 
Paul has a higher claim to be called Saviour, than Jesus of 
Nazareth ; for he taught much longer, far more widely, had 

23 



THE LAMB or (iOD. 

more success, and has left on record the most important in- 
struction we now have Respecting the nature of the Christian 
sy.-tem. 

On both grounds, then, viz. on that of rhetorical propriety, 
and on that of the great moral object to be accomplished by 
Christ, the interpretation of Lamb in our text as a mere sym- 
bol or indication otpenonal c}mr<icter, or of didactic pow< 

i> out of all reasonable question. 

We arc of necessity thrown, then, upon the other figura- 
tive or symbolic meaning of the word lamb t viz. an atwMM- 

<>K IKoiTHA TnUY SACRiriCK, BT WHICH THE PARDON OF 
m.\ i- BEOURBD, or (to nse the language of the text) "the 
sins of the world are taken away." 

Nothing could be more easy and natural, than for a Jew 
to employ the word in such a sen>e. What was that victim, 
whose blood, sprinkled on the door-posts of the Hebrew habi- 
tations in Egypt, was a sign to the destroying angel that he 
must pass by. and leave the inmates of the dwelling unharmed, 
while every Egyptian's house was mourning the death of a 
firstborn? The victim which furnished that blood was a 
lamb. Lambs were to be ever employed as victims, at the 
great feast of the passover. They were extensively employed 
in other sacrifices, and on occasions of great solemnity. Be- 
ing less expensive victims than bullocks, the great legislator 
of the dews enjoined an extensive use of them by the people, 
so that the poorer classes might thus participate in the offer- 
ings which were legally to be made. 

No oik 1 can wonder, then, that a dew. who regarded Christ 
in the light in which Isaiah has placed him, viz. as "wounded 
for our transgre ssi ons and braised for our iniquities," should 
call him a Lamb. See how familiarly Paul speaks, in regard 
to this matter : M Purge out," says he to the Corinthians, "the 
old leaven." Every Jew of course would spontaneously feel 
the reference in this command to the leavened bread which 
was to be put away, at the feast of the passover. But the 
apostle does not stop with this. lb' gOOS on to B8Sign a p 
son for his command, in language equally plain and signiti- 



i in: i fcflfl 09 <iOD. HI 

cant : u For even Christ, tmt /> rr- 

lauib. * is sacrificed for u-." ( 1 Oor. 5: 7). Peter -how- that 
tin* Mime idea is familiar to him: u Y. were redeemed/' says 
be to the Christiana whom he is addressing, •• not with cor- 
ruptible things but with the precious Mood of Christ, 

a Immi without blemish and without spot ;" ( 1 Pel I: 1< S < 19. 
1 \. 12: 5), That apostle who leaned on the bosom of Jesus, 
an<l who ha> recorded the words of John the Baptist which 
constitute our text, seems to have imbibed, in an unusual 
meaMnv, the spirit which led to the employment sf such lan- 

_-.' as I have repeated. Rapt into celestial vision, he be- 
held the throne of God, supported by four living matures, 
and surrounded by the twenty-tour elders. "In the midst of 
them," i.e. between the circling elders and the throne, "I 
saw." says he, k *a Lamb, as it had been slain, having seven 
horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God." 
That Lamb advances to the throne, and takes the book with 

n seal- out of the hand of him who sat upon that throne, 
in order that he might break the seals and disclose the con- 
tents of that book. But how are the heavenly spectators af- 
fected by this ? Every one falls prostrate before the Lamb, 
and all unite in singing the new song : " Thou wast slain, 
and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kin- 
dred and tongue and people and nation." All heaven re- 
spond to this. They shout aloud: "Worthy is the Lamb, 
that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and 
strength, and honour, and glory and blessing." The whole 
universe reechoes back this song : " Blessing and honour, 
and glory and power, be unto him who sitteth on the throne, 
and to the Lamb forever and ever!" (Bev. 5: 8 — 14). This 
settles the question, as to what views were connected with the 
word Iamb, as applied to Christ. It is a lamb which is slain ; 
a lamb whose blood has a redeeming efficacy ; even as Paul 
lias often asserted that we u have redemption by the blood of 
Christ." And although John has elsewhere in the Apoca- 
lypse presented the Lamb to our view, as " King of kings 
and Lord of lords," yet there is nothing in this which is at 



268 Tin: LAMB Of <OD. 

all at variance with his other view of the subject One thing 
lies upon the face of these passages; which is, that the high- 

clevation of heavenly rapture and song is always read: 
whenever Christ presents himself as a Lamb that had b< 
si a I it. 

May I not safely venture to assert, now, not only that John 
the Baptist might have meant to call Jesus a Lamb, becau-e 
he was to he an expiatory victim, hut that, according to rhe- 
torical propriety and the Jewish usages of speech, he n< 
have meant to convey such an idea? I do not believe, that 
avc can rationally suppose the Jews, who encircled the herald 
of Jesus 1 approach, would ever have thought of any other 
meaning of John's words than this. And could John fail to 
know this? And why should we suppose him to have em- 
ployed mystical or equi vocal language, on an occasion so 
solemn and important ? 

But if any douht remains on the mind of any one who hears 
me. in regard to this point, it will all be removed, as it seems 
to me, when we advance in the farther explanation of our 
text. 

Jesus is not only a lamb, but the Lamb of God. Here 

is superadded, in the way of explanation, a new relation or 
quality of the Lamb in question. It is barely possible, that 
lamb of God may mean most excellent lamb; as mountains of 
God are said to mean very high mountains, and the child Jlo- 
iras fair to God is said to mean that he was exceedingly 
fair. Lime has been, when these idioms were thus inter- 
preted ; but the idea of making a mere superlative out of the 
name of God, is now generally abandoned by the} best critics, 
and the words of God are admitted to be indicative of some 
rial relation to (iod. Accordingly, in the text before us, 
the Lamb of God must either mean the Lamb which belongs to 
God, or else the Lamb which Gfod provides. The Lamb which 
belongs to God would make an inept and frigid meaning, in 
the ease before us. The main design of John the Baptist is 
to show in what relation Jesus stand- to those whom he ad- 
dresses, not to show to whom the Lamb appertains as prop- 



vm. LAMB 01 <.oi>. 209 

crty. It follows, then, that the meaning must be : The Lamb 
which God has provided, or which he present! as a rin-offer- 

y Jew, in bid own case and on account of hi- own 

-in. was obliged by the Mosaic law to provide] and present 

as a sacrifice for >in, a lamb without spot <>r blemish* What 

ii had thus done for himself] God now docs for the Jews 

and tor all men. He provides a spotless victim, who through 

the eternal spirit was to offer up himself as a sacrifice to ( rod, 
and thus procure eternal redemption for all. 

.Mark, my hearers, what expanded views the forerunner of 

Jesus had, in regard to the nature and extent of C'hri 
mission. He was firsl of all a lamb, i. e. a propitiatory or 
vicarious sacrifice ; then, secondly, he was a lamb presented 
by no mere man who was himself a sinner, but provided by 
God himself; and of course, thirdly, we may accede to the 
remaining part of the declaration : Which taketJi away the sins 
of the world. In the language of the apostle John this 
phraseology imports, that the Lamb of Go\l was to be a pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice for Gentiles as well as Jews. The atone- 
ment of Christ, then, its efficacy, and its universality, are all 
plainly within the scope of John the Baptist's view. 

This brings us to the last declaration of our text: Which 
taketh away the sin of the world. 

What is it to take away sin? The Greek words (aiocov 
zi t v ufiaoiiar) are not of the classical idiom, but are simply 
Hebrew in Greek costume. The Hebrews employed the 
phrase (yv X-:) as meaning either to bear the punishment 
or consequences of sin, or to expiate sin, or to forgive sin. 
Either of the two first meanings will answer well for our text, 
for Christ " bore our sins and carried our sorrows ; he bore 
our sins in his own body on the tree (1 Pet. 2: 24) ; he was 
made a curse for us (Gal. 3: 13) ; he was made sin, who 
knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of 
God in him," (2 Cor. 5: 21). One might vindicate this 
shade of meaning, also, by appealing to the lamb as a sacri- 
ficial victim, which bore suffering in the room of him who 
presented the offering. Substantially, too, this meaning at- 

23* 



270 THE LAMB OF GOD. 

tached to the phrase would communicate to us the idea of 
Christ a< an Gtomng sacrifice. But I doubt not that the 
other shade of meaning conveyed by this Hebrew phmocoto 

gy, is the true idea of the passage before us. The Lamb 
that tabu <nr<nj the bios of the world, is the Lamb that malms 
expiation for them, and thus removes their condemning and 
sou l-dr>m> Yin:: power. The Greek verb translated toketh 
away (atom), like the corresponding Hebrew one (xirj), 
mean-, first of all, to lift up, elevate ; then to raise vp and 
NmSOI'I, M 006 lifts op a burden and then conveys it away. 
It w dmgiy significant in the passage under considera- 

tion. Christ took on him the burden of our sins, and Un- 
load he carried away or removed from us. Fif/urative, in- 
deed, is the whole manner of expression. Figurative was it 
anong the Jews, who spoke familiarly of their sacrificial 
victim- ss bearing the sins of the offerer, and taking them 
away. Over the head of the goat, which on the great day of 
expiation was sen! into the wilderness, confession was made 
by the high-priest in behalf of all the people, while his hands 
were laid on the head of the goat, in order thus to signify 
that the sins of the people were symbolically transferred to 
the goat ; and the same scape-goat is said to "bear all their 
iniquities unto a land not inhabited" (Lev. 1G: 21 seq.), i. e. 
it took away their sins. The offender who offered a sacrifice 
in a manner prescribed by law, was ecclesiastically and civil- 
ly freed from the penalty of the law. The law adjudged the 
victim to have suffered in his room or stead. 

No Other meaning than one drawn from these familiar 
sources, will answer the demands of our text. All else falls 
far below it, or widely misses the mark. To say that Christ 
takes away the sins of the world by virtue of the I tfJrtfCflhm 
which he communicated as our great teacher, is true enough 
to a certain extent ; but this idea by no means answers 
the ncies of our text. A lamb is not the emblem of 

an instructor. When the evangelist wishes to convey his 
views of Christ as our great teacher, he calls him the Li'ihtof 
tic world ; he sajl that i/i him was H/c and that life was the 



THE LAMB >D. 271 

light of men ; he says that the Only Begotten of the Father 

the purposes of God fully to us. Indeed it is 

quite plain, that entirely another mode of expression than 

that in our text must be adopted, in order intelligibly to con- 
the idea in question. 
One word a< to taking away the mm fifth* world, and 
ive done with my main theme. Other conditions b68J 

the expiatory death of Christ are neoessary to complete the 

actual salvation of the sinner — conditions on kU part, whicli 

indispensable. He must be a penitent; he must believe 

and trusr in the Lord Jesus Christ as the only and all-suffi- 
cient Saviour of sinners. This done, salvation is as wide as 
the world of men. The proffer of it is universal ; the pro- 
vision for it on the part of God is all-sufficient. But the sin- 
ner must become united to Christ by faith, in order actually 
to avail himself of this provision. 

Thus have I endeavoured to explain and vindicate this 
most important part of all the preaching or declarations of 
John the Baptist, whicli is left on sacred record. No one 
will deny that our subject has an intimate connection with 
the solemnities in which we are to engage this day ; for to- 
day, (we may say with the apostle of old), is Christ our pass- 
over sacrificed for its. Or we may use the words of the 
same apostle on another occasion : " Christ Jesus is evident- 
ly set forth before us, as crucified among us." 

Christians are you prepared for this sacred feast ? Do 
you look by faith to that Lamb of God, which taketh away 
the sin of the world? I would most affectionately and 
solemnly warn you, that it is necessary to discern the Lord's 
body aright, if we would escape condemnation when we come 
to this table ; and surely so, if we would rationally expect to 
participate in the blessings which it indicates. What then is 
discerning the Lord's body aright? 'Would any one ever 
devise such an expression, in order to inculcate the necessity 
or the importance of recognizing Christ as our instructor, or 
as a perfect model of piety and virtue ? " Not discerning the 
Lord's body aright !" And is his body our teacher, and his 



272 Tin: lamb of god. 

body our model of holiness and virtue ? — No ! good taste, 
propriety, as well as all that is awful and saered in the death 
of Christ, revolts at sueh an interpretation. Peter hftfl 
plained it: "Whohia own self, in his own body, base our 

sins upon the tree," (1 Pel 2: 24). It is the discerning of 
that body, laden with our sins, suffering and dying under the 
weight of them, which we are called to, on an occasion like 
the present. My dear Christian friends, are you prepared 
to do this in a spiritual manner — in such a way as to feed by 
faith on the body and blood of an atoning Saviour? This is 
what is meant by " eating his flesh and drinking his blood." 
I reject — were not the occasion so sacred I w r ould say — reject 
with scorn, all carnal and literal interpretation of this. How 
can the literal eating of flesh, and the literal drinking of hu- 
man blood, purify and sanctify the spirits of men ? It is a 
heathen conception. But there is a meaning in phraseology 
of this nature, which is transcendently excellent, and is re- 
freshment to the soul. Paul felt what it was, when he said 
to the Corinthians : " I am determined to know nothing among 
you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." Paul ac- 
knowledged it, when he declared that he would " preach 
Christ crucified," and that " the preaching of the cross is the 
power of God unto salvation." Paul realized it in all its ex- 
cellence, when he said to the Galatians : " God forbid that I 
should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." 

Are you prepared my friends to sympathize with him — to 
enter fully into the meaning of his words ? If you are, then 
may you this morning behold the Lamb of God which taketh 
away the sins of the world. I cannot, indeed, point you to 
his bodily presence, as John the Uaptist did his hearers ; but 
I am authorized to assure you, that the symbols of his body 
and of his blood, are not symbols of what has no existence 
and no reality. They are symbols of a jjresc/it Christ, lie 
if a.- really here to-day, as he was on the banks of the Jor- 
dan, when John announced him as the Lamb of God, to the 
wondering multitude, lie will be at the head of our table, 
on thifl occa-ion, if we are ready to receive him. Faith can 



Tin. i kB M Mfe 278 

see him there in all his meekness, and all his benignity, and 
all his majesty. Faith has an car also to hear him addr 
Bl and say ; w Eal friend- ; drink, () beloved \ M "This 
is my body, which was broken for you ; my blood, that v, 
shed for the remission of sins." Lamb of ( Jod who takest 
away the rial of the world, open onr blind eyes to see thee 
in thy giofj and in thy mercy ! Unstop our deaf ears, that 
may listen to the invitations of thy love to-day, and so 
hear that our souls may live ! Amkx. 



CHRISTIANITY A DISTINCT RELIGION. 



[After haying already apologized, at die beginning of the preceding 
Discourse, lot the repetition el certain topics in respect to the a 
ami Godhead of Christ, it would Been to be trespassing upon the 
patience and offending the taste of the reader, to insert another discos. 
here, which needs ^t ill more an apology of the like nature, h' this 
volume consisted of one treatise or discussion only ifl would be oat of 
question thus to trespass upon my readers; who doubtless would, and 
not unnaturally, feel that I expected to be heard for much speaking if 
they did not bring the more serious charge of using vain repetitions. 
All that I have to say is, that the discourses, when composed, were sep- 
arated by years, and were delivered before different audiences and at va- 
rious places, and could not therefore appear as repetitions to the audi- 
tor-. They arc in each case simple copies of thoughts familiar to my 
own mind, and not transcriptions of each other. My own taste and judg- 
ment would lead me to omit some of them in tlii> little volume, in order 
to avoid the appearance of repetition. Hut 1 feel compelled to defer to 
the often repeated wishes of friends whom I love and respect, by insert- 
ing them all without remodeling or Substantial change. Each has its 

own peculiar attitude ; and besides what is common to all. each is made 

Up, tor the mo>t part, of what i- peculiar to itself. The preceding sacra- 
mental Sermon is a purely exegetical discourse. The Sermon which now 
follows, brings to view an attitude Of Christianity, which never can he 
made tOO much of. If we Wish tO know whether we are reall v ( 7 
tiiins; or whether Others who claim thi> honourable name are entitled to 
it', we must tir>t know what Christianity is. in distinction from all etSS 
that i> called religion. This great question 1 have endeavoured to an- 
swer. In so doing, ir was impossible tor me not to Bay some things, that 
the reader hafl already met with in the preceding pages. I hope, how- 
ever, for his indulgence, in these circumstances, and that he will not ae- 
CUSe me of merely copying from myself, or of making up a hook of 

repetitions to no purpose. — M. s.] 



S E II M < ) N 



MATT. XVIII. 90. 

; \\iiii:i: two OB rn 1:1:1: vim: G vi 11 1:1:1 i» rOGBTHKB in my 

\\M1. MM.Ki; AM I IN Till; KIDS! <»1 l.IKM.* 

Si < n was the declaration of the Saviour to his apostles* 
lie had been giving them directions with regard to the mode 
of exereising discipline in the church, and had promised them 
special assistance in the discharge of this duty, when he ut- 
tered the words of our text. lie had told them, that when 
two of their number should be agreed on earth, respecting 
anything which they would ask, it should be done for them 
by his Father in heaven. On this, he assured them, they 
might rely ; since no such request could escape his notice, or 
fail of attracting his aid. Wherever two or three are met to- 
yethcr, said he, in my name, theft am I in the midst of them; 
consequently the apostles could not fail of obtaining that aid 
which he had promised. 

Although these words had a particular reference, when 
they were first spoken, to the apostles, and were intended to- 
satisfy their minds respecting the assistance which their Lord 
and Master would give them, while employed in his service \ 
yet, as there is nothing in the nature of the case which ne- 
cessarily limits them to the apostles only, I shall consider 
them as addressed to Christians of every age, and applicable 
to all who convene in the name of Christ. Not that a 
promise of miraculous aid is to be extended to all who are 
convened as the disciples of Christ ; not that everything for 



* Preached at the Dedication of the Church in Hanover Street, Bos- 
ton. March 1, 1826. 

24 



273 CHRI8TIAKITT 

whiefa they now ask will be specifically granted, aa it was to 
those who had a miraculous faith, and who asked for vbxv 
things under special supernatural guidance. The applica- 
tion of pur text to Christians of every a - not necessa^ 

rily involve this. The assurance of Christ to the apostles, 
that whatever any two should agree in asking for, Bhould 
be bestowed upon them, is grounded not on the tact that he 
would be specially present, and present only with them aa 
(ijx>stl(s, hut on the tact, that wherever his disciples might 
convene he would be present It involves a general promic 
that they who Bhould he his sincere friends and faithful min- 
isters of the gospel, should enjoy his presence and aid. It is 
a promise oi' a nature similar to that which the Saviour made 
at the moment of his ascension : u Lo I am with you always, 
even unto the end of the world." 1 This was addressed to 
the apostles ; and was designed in a peculiar manner to cbeer 
their drooping spirit-, and animate them in the great work 
which they were about to undertake. But who will say, 
that it must he confined solely to them? Were they to con- 
tinue to the end of the world? If not, then Christians in 
general, or at least the ministers of the divine word in gen- 
eral, down to the end of time, are meant to be included. 

This may suiHce to show, that our text can be properly 
adduced at the present d:\\\ and on this occasion, as applica- 
ble to an assembly of worshippers convened in the name of 
Christ 

It' so. we may now proceed to inquire : 

I. What is it for an assembly of men to convene in the 
name of Christ ? 

II. What 18 implied in the declaration that he is in the 
midst of them ? 

Our English translation of the verse, which I have chosen 
as my text, hardly convey- to the common reader of our lan- 
guage the force of the original (.Jreek. Such a reader would 

naturally suppose, that the phrase in my name means, by As 

1 .Matt 



A DI9TIW r i;i i. k.k.n. 270 

authority or I of Christ; a speak of anything 

being done in the nam.' of the king, or in the name rf the 
commonwealth. But this would be an entire misconception 
of the meaning of tli passage before Oft. In the Hebrew 
language of the ( Hd Testament, and in the ( ireek of the New, 
which \<tv frequently (as might naturally be expected) imi- 
tates it closely, tli*- word name is often employed only as a 
kind of periphrasis or circumlocution, in order to express Witt, 
'. i. c the person to whom the word name refers. Thus 
the II* say : Let the name of God be honoured 1 instead 

umply saying: Let God he honoured I God says: J trill 

<il ,,<>/ name, instead of I will reveal myself. So our Sa- 
viour -ays, in the prayer which we familiarly call the Lord's 
Prayer : Hallowed be thy name ; which means, Be tltoti held 

revere n ce, or adored. 

Front this very common usage in the Hebrew tongue it 
comes, that in the New Testament such phrases as for thy 
name?* take, on account of thy name, often mean nothing 
more than for thy sake, on thy account. For example: Ye 

shall be hated of all men for my name's sake, i. e. for 

my sake. 1 All these tilings shall they do to you on ac- 
count of my name, i. e. on account of me.' 3 Whoever shall 

forsake his family and friends for my name's sake, i. e. 

on account of me. 3 Whatever ye shall ask in my name, i. e. 
on account of me, for the sake of my cause. 4 The Holy 
Spirit, ichom the Father will send in my name, i. e. on ac- 
count of me, or for the sake of my cause. 5 If ye are re- 
proached for the name of Christ, i. e. on account of him, be- 
cause ye are Christians. Whoever shall receive a little child 
in my name, i. e. on my account. 7 

It were easy to add many more examples of the same na- 
ture, but I forbear. I have produced these, merely to show 
that I do not hazard anything in asserting the sentiment of 
our text to be this : )l here two or three are convened on my 

1 Matt lo: 22. 4 John 14: 13, 14 ,; 1 Pet. 4: 14. 

2 John 15: 21. 5 John 14: 26. 7 Luke 9: 48. 

3 Matt 10: 29. 



CHRISTIANITY 

t, for my eake, leoauce of me. The original Greek 
($tg ro ip&i tLvafia) can scarcely admit of any other con- 
struction. 

To meet together on account of Christ. \< to Convene m hii 
disciples; as having a common interest in him ; and aa i 

ising characteristics which distinguish those who do thus 
convene from Other men, i. e. from the world around them. 
:i may convene for a great variety of purposes, cither 
of business or of pleasure. lint it will not he affirmed that 
all conventions of this sort are for the sake of Christ. Nay, 
men may i gether lor acts of religious worship, and yet 

not convene for the sake of Christ. Sober theista like Lord 
Herbert, Jews, Mohammedans, nay idolaters, may meet to- 
nether for the sake of social worship ; but they come not to- 
gether in the name of Christ ; nor lias he promised to be in 
the mid-t of such assemblies. 

There is something, then, which must distinguish the Chris- 
tian worshipper from all others; something which makes him 
what he professes to be, a Christian, in distinction from an 
unbeliever, a heathen or polytheist, a deist or naturalist, a Jew, 
or a Mohammedan. Like every other religion received by 
men, Christianity has, and must have, some distinctive traits 
of its own which make it what it is; which make it Chris- 
tianity rather than Deism, or Judaism, or Islamism. The 
disciples of Christ, his true disciples, must of course recog- 
nize these traits. It' there be doctrines and duties of Chris- 
tianity which differ from those of all other religions, then 
they who are the genuine followers of Christ, and real con- 
vert- to his religion, must receive those doctrines, and prac- 
tice those duties. Nor can any be truly said to meet togeth- 
er in the name of Christ, or as his di<ciples, who do not ad- 
mit the one, and practise the other. 

Surely a man could not, with any propriety, be called a 

liammedan, who should refuse to receive the Koran, and 
to practise the rites and duties which it enjoins; nor could 
he he called a dew, who should reject the Pentateuch, and 
the peculiarities of the Jewish institutions. It cannot be any 






A DItTDK i 1:1 L1GI0N. 281 

more proper, then, t<> consider men as real Christians, or to 
call an assembly convened for the purposes of worship, ( '/>. 
tiiius, provided they reject the peculiarities of the Christian 
religion which stake it what it is, vi/. Okrutianiiy m distinc- 
tion from all other religions, 

Wbafl then is it to come together as Christiauf What 

listinctive traits of belief or character* which sejH 

ante Christians from all other worshippers j make them the 

that promise which our text contains ; and give 

thcni, therefore, the assurance that Christ will be present 
when they worship as his disoiph 

Christianity docs not differ, as to every doctrine which it 
I us, and every duty which it prescribes, from all other 
ins of religion. The better part even of pagans admit- 
ted some of the doctrines which our religion inculcates. Many 
of the moral duties, for example, were taught with no small 

^ree of force and perspicuity by Socrates, Plato, Epictetus, 
Plutarch, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, and others. The light of 
nature did much for such men ; and the doctrines which they 
taught, and the duties which they inculcated, so for as they 
were guided by that light, were altogether accordant with those 
which Christianity teaches and enjoins. 

Uut the difference, after all, is so wide between Christianity 
and any of the various systems of idolatry and polytheism, 
that I do not think it worth a moment's delay, on the present 
occasion, to show that a worshipper under the Gospel is of a 
very different complexion from one who either bows down to 
images which his own hands have made, or worships the host 
of heaven, or prostrates himself before heroes and conquerors, 
whom superstition has exalted to heaven and ranked among 
the objects of human adoration. 

Very different from all these, and at a great advance be- 
yond them, is the considerate theist or naturalist of modern 
times, the Jew, and the Mohammedan. These, I mean the 
sober and reasoning part of them, all unite in the belief, that 
there is one only living and true God, spiritual, eternal, om- 
niscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, just, wise, good, 

24* 



CHRISTIANITY 

merciful, and faithful ; the creator, pre s er ve r, and governor 
of all things; and the proper object of religious worship by 
all the creatures which he has made. They all i that 

man is a rational, accountable, immortal being, placed in a 

Mal<- of moral probation ; and that there is a future world, a 
judgment to come, a state of punishment for the wieked, and 
of reward for the righteous. They all agree, that God is the 
proper object of prayer, and of secret and social worship; 
they assert the obligation of men to repent of their sins, and 
to forsake them ; and they unite in a full acknowledgment of 
nearly all the moral duties which the gospel enjoins. 

I have .-aid that the soher theist admits all this ; and I might 
appeal to the works of Lord Herbert, Tindal, and others of 
past times ; of Kant and Eberhard, of recent memory; or to 
various writers of the present time, in proof of this proposi- 
tion, were any disposed to doubt it. I presume, however, that 
Done who hear me will doubt it. If then the naturalist, who 
rejects all revelation, and denies all supernatural intercourse 
between God and his creatures, admits thus much ; we might 
well expect that the Jew, with the Old Testament in his hands, 
would go still farther. This is in fact the case; for he ad- 
mits the authority of the Old Testament ; the inspiration of 
Moses and the prophets; that there is a Messiah to come; 
and that God is not only to be worshipped by a life of prayer 
and the practice of social virtues and moral duties, but to be 
Worshipped in the particular manner pointed out in the Old 
Testament, so often as this may he possible* 

The .Mohammedan goes -till farther, in the theory of his 
faith. lie admits both revelations ; that in ancient, and that 
in later days ; that by Moses and the prophets, and that by 
JeSHS Christ lb- admits them to have been of di\ine au- 
thority, and Still to !»<• substantially so. But all that is essen- 
tial in them, he believes is comprehended in the Koran; 
which, in his view, is the last and most perfect of all divine 

revelations. 

Bow then does the disciple of Jesus differ from these vari- 
ous religionist- ? Nut in the belief of one Ood ; not in main- 



A DlSmtOI U i.KilON. 

taining the perfection of all his natural and moral attribut 

irding him as the creator, presenter, and gwenov 
of the universe : n<»t in the belief thai we are rational, ac- 
intable, immortal beings ; thai there is a judgmenl to con 

(hat there ifl a future world of happiness, Slid another of wo, 
in out of which men will he placed, according to the charac- 

ter which they sustain in their probationary state ; not in the 
i f that God i> the proper object of prayer, and of private 

and social worship ; not in admitting the obligation to incul- 
cate and practise all the social and moral virtues. So far as 
all these truths are concerned, the Christian occupies ground 
in common with the naturalist, the Jew, and the Mohamme- 
dan. AYhy is he then a Christian, and not a Theist, nor a 
Jew, nor a Mohammedan ? Plainly because he admits some 
other doctrines, and practises some duties, that are peculiar 
to Christianity^ and which exclude the peculiarities of the 
otlu ins of religion, that give names to their respective 

votaries. AVhen Christians assemble, then, as the disciples of 
Christ, in a manner that comports with the name which they 
bear, they assemble as possessed of some peculiar traits of 
character, which distinguish them from all other worshippers. 
They meet together, indeed, to acknowledge and adore one 
only living and true God, possessed of all possible natural and 
moral perfections ; as immortal beings ; as probationers for 
eternity ; as believing in a judgment to come, and in the re- 
wards and punishments of the invisible world. They meet 
together, acknowledging and inculcating the moral and social 
duties, and believing them indispensable in order to secure 
divine approbation. Thus far they go, in common with the 
Rationalist, the Jew, and the Mohammedan. But the differ- 
ence between these religionists and Christians, lies in some- 
thing that is superadded to all this ; something which they 
only admit, and must admit and practise, in order to be 
Christians. 

What then are the peculiarities which distinguish them, 
and which render it proper to say of them that they meet in 
the name of Christ, or on account of him ? A very interest- 



284 CHRISTIANITY 

ing and a very delicate question; one which, however, my 

text leads DM to make an attempt briefly to aii>wcr. It' I am 
not fully, I am at least in some good measure, aware of t he 
responsibility and the difficulty of the ease, lint 1 am not 

Qg to dogmatise. I -hall appeal to no councils ; no father 
no creeds; do catechisms ; no works of tlie schoolmen | no 
labours of acute and metaphysical divines ; in a word, to no 
human system whatever. All — all — of these an- made by 
frail erring BOOB* They are not of any binding authority; 
and we have a warrant that is sufficient, not to receive them, 
or any of them, as possessing such authority. I advert to the 
warning of our Saviour, whieh bids us call no uia/i master 
upon earth ; fat there is one who is our master, that dwelletk 
i/i J * 

To mi: law and Te> Tin: TESTIMONY. "What we find 
there, we may rely upon. All else is uncertain ; to say the 
least, it is exposed to error. 

Will you allow me then, my friends, to make such an ap- 
peal as I have now described? Instead of striving to ph, 
your fancy, by presenting you with line imagery and poetic 
pictures, or with ingenious and subtle disquisition, or with 

dilation whieh might amuse and pleasantly beguile away 
an hour, will you permit me to carry you along with me over 
various partfl of the New Testament, the record and statute- 
book of our holy religion, and see what the Saviour himself, 
his apostles, and the teachers inspired by him, have taught us 
respecting the peculiar and distinguishing characteristics of 
r« al Christians ? While you, my brethren, who are to convene 

in this house, expect to meet together to worship God, and 
inculcate the duties of morality, at least as much as others do 
who bear not the Christian name ; you expect also to come 
here in the name of Christ, and as his disciples. You intend 
to prof eu ami to do not only more than the pagan, but more 
than the naturalist, or the Jew, or the .Mohammedan. I shall 
not attempt, within the brief limit- assigned to this diseour 
ii to glanee at all the peculiarities of the Christian sys- 
i, whieh as the disciples of Christ you are bound to main- 



\ distiw roioN. tM 

tain. The most that I can do, is merely i<> present b far 
particulars, which are prominent among the characterise 
that distinguish the Christian religion from all others. M 
than this cannot be reasonably expected, fctm an oecasion 

like the present. I obserre then, 

Yoq win) are here t<> meet together in the name of 

Chrie m! trust in him 0$ the true Messi(th, the 

7. <nul the only Saviour of sinners 

3 himself commissioned his apoetlei to declare: 
. . . .preach the Gospel to every creature^ He that be- 

■> fh . . . . shall be saved : hut he that believeth not shall be 

r/. 1 But what is it to be saved? Another Scripture 

has answered the question : He that believeth on the Son, hath 

lasting lif\ i. e. happiness. AVhat is it to be damned? 
This inquiry also is answered : He that believeth not the Son, 
shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him? 
Again: He that believeth on him, is not condemned ; but he 
that believeth not is condemned already, because he does not 
believe on the name of the only begotten Son of God. 2 Thus 
said the Saviour, on another occasion, to the Jews : If ye be- 
lieve not that lam He, (that is, the Messiah), ye shall die in 
your si/ts ; l in other words, remission of the penalty you 
have incurred, or pardon for sin, can be obtained only 
through such a belief. John tells us, that the object of writ- 
ing his Gospel was to persuade men to believe that Jesus is 
the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing they might have 
life through him J' He tells us again in his epistle, that he 
who believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself; 
but he that believeth not God, hath made him a liar, because he 
believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. What was 
that record ? He proceeds to inform us : This is the record 
that God hath given to us eternal life ; and this life is in his 
Son. 6 What follows? He that hath the So?i hath life ; and 
he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1 

1 Mark 16: 15, 16. 4 John 8: 24. 6 1 John 5: 10, 11. 

2 John 3: 36. 6 John 20: 31. 7 1 John 5: 12. 

3 John 3: 18" 



286 OHBXSTIAHIR 

In full aoeordanee with this, when the trembling jailer 
pro stra ted himself before Paul and Silas, and said: 8ii 

what must I do to be saved? they answered: Believe on the 

Lord Jeetu Christ, and thou shaU be eaveeV 
Bnt is there no other way of salvation ? May we not be 
■ -. if we adhere to some other prophet, some other system of 

rsJSgion ? No ; not it' Peter is to be credited, who declared to 
the persecuting Jews: There i$ salvation in none other; for 
there is none other name given under heaven among m 
w h e r e by we mutt be eaveeW The claims of the Saviour then 
are supreme, are exclusive; they admit of no rival with him. 
The Gospel teaches that there is hut one true religion; one 
right way to heaven ; one Saviour of sinners. If before the 
Saviour came Gfod winked at the times of ignorance, he no 
longer does so where that Saviour is proclaimed. He now 
cominandeth all men everywhere to repent. 2 

But why are we to believe and trust in the Son of God, 
whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world? 
Because he is the Saviour, and only Saviour of sinners. 
H%e name was called Jesus, because he was to save his people 
from their sins, i. e. from the power and penalty of sin. 4 
But how save them? Merely by instruction? By exam- 
ple? If he be a Saviour merely because he instructed the 
people ; then has Paul a better title to that name than he. 
Jesus wrote no part of our Scriptures ; Paul wrote the most 
instinctive parts of all. Jesus never travelled beyond the 
boundaries of Palestine ; he made but few converts to his 
religion: Paul travelled almost the world over; converted 
many thousands ; and built up a multitude of churches. Yet 
Pan! does nut claim the honour of being the Saviour of men ; 
neither do other Christians, his fellow men and cotempora- 
eleSj highly as they value him and his labours, attribute it to 
him. 

Was Jesus an example of virtue? So was Paul. That 
HH metre spotless, does not render his example more 

1 A.ts 163 11. J Arts 17: * Ms* l. SI. 

2 Acts 4: 13. 



A DIgl IN* I RELIGION, 287 

Unliable by 08. If W6 can 0OID6 Dp to Paul's >tandard, 

our lalvatioo is a; least secure* Did Jesus die, to seel by bis 

m! tlh> truths of tli«- holy religion which be taught ? 
did Paul. Did be exhibit the highest conviction of \\. 
truths which he taught, by unshaken attachment to them. 
amid every kind of persecution, Buffering, and trial' 

did Paul. Did lie work miracles in continuation of them? 

•lid Paul. Was he a divinely commissioned instructor? 

waa Paul. Was he taught of God, as to the doctrii 
which be preached? So was Paul. Nay more; Paul was 
caught up into the third heaven, and beard unspeakable 

word-, which it is not proper for man to utter; but this IS 
nowhere .-aid of Jesus. What then did JesUS perform, which 
Paul did not ? In the otlice and duty of an instructor, a 
martyr, a prophet, a worker of miracles, a divinely commis- 
sioned messenger, a successful reformer, simply considered 
a- -mli, Paul was in almost all respects equal, in many re- 
superior, to him. Why is not Paul then — Paul the 
great apostle of the CI entiles to whom we belong — our exalt- 
ed benefactor to whom we owe an eternal debt of gratitude ? 
Why is not he to be hailed as our Saviour ? Why are we 
not to meet together in his nana 

Ah, my brethren, it is because there is only one name 
given under heaven, whereby ice can be saved. 1 Only one has 
made atonement for sin by his death, and brought in ever- 
lasting redemption for us. This Paul did not ; Peter did 
not ; James did not. They all were martyrs to the cause of 
truth. They sealed their testimony with blood. But it was 
only the blood of Abel, and not that which '''speaketh better 
things." But Jesus icas ivounded for our transgressions ; he 
was bruised for our iniquities ; the chastisement of our jieace 
[i. e. by which our peace is procured] was upon him, and by 
his stripes ice are healed. . . . The Lord hath laid on him the 
iniquity of us all:- When he made his first appearance be- 
fore the multitudes, assembled on the banks of the Jordan in 

1 Acts 4: 12. 2 Is. 53: 5, 6. 



288 ( IKRISl IANITY 

()]■«!< or to be baptised by his forerunner John, he was proclaim- 
ed to them by this inspired herald, aa the Lamb oj 

uldtpki away As si/us of the worldJ Bat a Lamb it not 

an instructor, DOT an example of piety; a lamb is . 
% propitiatory off* ring* 

When Christians look to Jesus as their Saviour, and - 
Saviour, they must consider him as Peter did; who tells us 
that he, his own s>lf hare our sins in his own body on the 
tree .... and that by his stripes we are />> "led: 2 They must 
believe with this same apostle, that we h ' been redemAad 

with corruptible things, as with silver and gold .... but by 
tkepreoioUi V/OOd of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and 
without sjtot.' 3 This is that Lami; 09 ( »0 1), my friends, to 
which John the Baptist pointed his followers; thai Lamb 
which by its blood was to redeem perishing sinners. 

Christians, who are to worship here in the name of Christ, 
you must believe with Paul, that 100 have redemption through 
the blood of Christ, even the foryive nem of sins.* Paul says, 
too, that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, .... 
and that we are now justified by his blood ; that when we 
were eiwmies to God, we were reconciled to him by the death 
of his Son. 5 lie says, also, that Christ was once offered to 
b> or the sins of many fi and that if the blood of bulls and 
goats served the purpose of external purification, hom mmdi 
more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit 
offered himself Without spot to God, purge your conscia 
from dead works, to serve the liviiaj God. 1 

John too unites his testimony with that of other prophets 
and apostles. Jesus Christ the riyhtcous, says he, is the pro- 
jritiution, i. e. propitiatory sacrifice, for our sins, and not for 
ours only, but also for the sins of the whole worlds Again, 
the blood of Jesus Christ dsemetih from all $inJ* 

Such was Paul's conviction respecting this part of the 

1 .Julin 1: 29. * Coi 1: 14. Kph. 1: 7. : Ilr!>. «.): l.>. 1 1. 

,J 1 Pet. fc 84. ■ Bom. 5: 8— 10. 8 1 John ^ I, 2, 

3 1 Pet 1: 18, 19. ,; He!. .9 9 1 J »hll 1: 7. 



A DISTIXl i RELIGION. 

ir's character and work, that he t<*lls tin' Corinthians, 
he 

Christ and him a ;' not Christ the proph< i, the traeh- 

er, the p nplar nwrelyj but Cbeisi i at i hud. 

And though this doctrine was to //< .A //-.%• a stumbling block 
and tu th he eontinued to preacl 

:// w' 6JW^ Mr 
righteoutm T<> the I »ala- 

tians, who were inclined to glory in the rites of the Jewish 
disp ii, the same apostle lays : SW forbid that I 

a&s in flu* < LardJImu Christ.'* 

Thus preached and wrote apostles and martyrs, who were 
ins; if God. Tims you should believe and feel, my 

Christian brethren, when you meet together in this sacred 
place. And when you approach, here, the table of your 
Lord and master, in order to commemorate his dying love, 
then believe, when you see and taste the symbol of a Sa- 
viour's blood, that, as he told his disciples when this holy- 
feast was instituted, his blood of the New Testament was shed 
for many for the remission of sins A 

Your thoughts, while you are convened in this sacred 
place, will often be directed to a brighter and better w r orld. 
Thither you hope to go, and mingle your song with that of 
the blessed above. You will remember then, that they, in 
unison with prophets and apostles and all the redeemed of 
God on earth, sing: Thou ivast slain, and hast redeemed us 
to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and 
peojjlr. and nation.* 

I will only add, that if, after all which you arc taught re- 
specting the atoning blood of a Saviour, you reject it, and 
renounce your hope and trust in it, you will subject your- 
selves to the awful sentence which an apostle has pronounced 
on all such : If we sin wilfully, after that ice have received 

1 1 Cor. 2: 2. 3 Gal 6: 14. b Rev. 5: 9. 

2 1 Cor. 1; 23, 24 : 30. ■ Matt. 2C: 28. 

25 



CIIKI- I IANITY 

the knowledge of the truth, there rtmameth no moti nee 

for st/tjmt a certain fearful looking for of judgment a 
fiery indignation, which shall devour the add i. He that 

deepieed Moses' law, died without mercy under two or three 
uritx of how much sorer punishment, suppa$ all 

hs be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of 
■/. and hath counted the Hood of the covenant wherewith he 

teas sanctified an u nhol ij thi u</, and h<'th doiw (it spite unto the 

Spirit of grace* For we knou) him that hath said: \. 
geanee is mine and 1 will recomp xith the Lord*} 

It' there is any one point, which widely distinguishes the 
Christian religion from all others, it is that on which I have 
now dwelt. ]So other religion presents you with a founder, 
who has made atonement lor his followers by his own blood. 
Abraham did not; Moses did not; John the Baptist did 
not ; Mohammed did not ; none of the heathen even pre- 
tend to have done it. Bat Christ with his own Llood en- 
tered the sanctuary above) having obtained eternal redemption 
for us: 1 Here then is a difference heaven-wide between the 
sincere follower of Jesus, who believes in him as sueh a Sa- 
viour, and the naturalist, the Jew, or the Mohammedan. 
Here is the fundamental principle in which Christianity dif- 
fers from all else that is called religion. When you meet 
in the name of Christ, you must believe and acknowledge 
and feel these truths. — But, 

{'!) Another characteristic of true Christianity is love to 
Christ. 

The true disciples of Christ will not only love him, but 
love him supremely, in comparison with every created being 
and object. So the Saviour himself demands: If ant/ /nan 
Come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, <uul wife 
and children, and brethren, and sieterSj >/co, and his own life 
(ds<>< Iw cannot be my discij)le.' A Peter felt the flame of such 
love glowing in his bosom, when he wrote thus to the Jews 
in their dispersion respecting Christ: Whom having not 

1 1Kb. lo. 20—30. 2 Ilcb. {): 11, 12. 3 Luke 14: 20. 



A DISTINCT RELIGION. 201 

steii, //• in whom, though you now see him not, //*■/ be* 

v unsp and full of glory ;' 

and again: / who & \ precious** John also 

has told us, that iri i ththai Jesus is the ('hrlst. 

and that every one who loveih him that begat y 
ither, loveth hint also thai is begotten of him, viz. 
tin S 

From Paol we might expect the same testimony, drawn 

in glowing colours ; and we arc not disappointed. T<> the 

Ephesians he says: Graa be with all than that love the Lord 

s Christ, in sincerity.* The Colossians he exhorts to 

things which are above, where Christ siUeth at the 

hi hand of tint!, and goes on to say, that their life is hid 
with Christ in God; and that when Christ, who is their life, 
shall appear, the// a/so shall appear with him in glory. <> lie 
tolls the Philippians, that he was in a strait bet wist two, hav- 
■r to depart, and to }w with Christ, which is far bet- 
terfi To the Corinthians lie declare.-, that the lore of Christ 
constrains him, viz. to labour and suffer, because he thus judg- 
ed, that if one died for all, then were all dead. 1 And in clos- 
ing his first epistle to them, such a sense had the apostle of 
obligation to love the Saviour, that he declares : //" any man 
love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema Maran- 
atha, i. e. accursed when the Lord shall come to judgment. 8 

If you say : g All good men, all prophets and apostles, are 
to be loved and reverenced ;' I concede it cheerfully. But 
the distinction between the love due to Christ and to them is, 
that the former is supreme. No created being or thing can 
come at all in competition with him. 

1 But are we to love the Son rather than the Father ? Or 
more than we love the Father ?' I answer : We are to love 
the Father in him, and him in the Father .° . The Father has 
no jealousy in respect to any degree of love which we may 

4 1 Put. 1: 8. 4 Bph. Ss U. 7 2 Cor. 5: 14. 

2 1 Pet ± 7. 5 Col. .'i: 1—4. 8 1 Cor. lfi: 22. 

3 1 John 5: 1. 6 Phil. 1: 23. 9 John 14: 11. 



202 CHRISTIANITY 

betor to the Son. lie himself baa proclaimed him to u 

his beloved and tndg Son. in whom i< z. 1 

lint I deem it unnecessary to dilate on this topic. It i 
plain a ease, thai Christians ought to love Christ, ami love 
him ardently) sincerely, supremely, that I do not expect then 
will be any to gainsay it. Whether we consider Christ in 
eel to what lie is, or to what he has done, he i- deserving 
of our highest love and gratitude. 

(8) Another peculiar trait of Christians, BS drawn in the 
New Testament, is, that they / j homage to the 

On this topic, as well as on others, T stand not in thifl 
cred place to descant as a polemic With human creeds or 
subtleties, or school distinctions and speculations, I have at 
eat nothing to do. Creeds judiciously compost d. -up- 
ported by Scripture, and embracing essential doctrines only, 
may be useful as a symbol of common faith among churches. 
But they are not the basis of a Protestant's belief; nor should 
they be regarded as the vouchers for it. My object now is 
to inquire simply: What did the apostles and primitive dis- 
ciples of the Lord and Saviour say and do, relative to the 
great subject before us? And the evidence of this -hall be 
adduced merely from the sacred record-. 

I observe, then, that the primitive disciples did render to 
the Saviour religious homagb. They made him the object of re- 
ligious invocation. When tin.' apostles were assembled at Jeru- 
salem, for the first time after the Saviour'.- ascension to heaven, 
and were proceeding to elect another apostle in the room of Ju- 
das the traitor, they made invocation to the Saviour, and said : 
Than Lord) who hnowesi the heart* of ell men, sh<>w whether 

of these tiro fhoM host cKosenf The time, the manner, the 

object of this prayer, and the appellation given to him who 

addressed, all concur to show that the Saviour is here 

meant. Stephen, the expiring martyr, who was tilled with 

the Holy Ghost, and on whom the very visions of Cod were 
1 Luke 9 88. Mitt. :3: 17. ■ Acta i Si. 



A DISTOT* I i;i LIGION. 203 

opening, with his last breath invoked the Saviour, and said: 
Lord J y spirit / J Ananias, when bid by Christ 

mforl the persecuting Saul who had been sub- 
dued by the power of the Saviour, uljbi T have heard how 

ml l<" hath done to thy at Jerusalem ; And I 

he hath Ityfrom tin- chief priest, to bind <d1 that inv 

thy When the Christians in Judea heard of Saul's 

conversion, tiny Baid with amazement : fi not tin's lie who 
which invoke tin's name, i. c. the name of Christ, 
in J { In both these cases, they who invoke the name 

of Christ, i. e. call upon him in prayer, is familiarly used as 

iere periphrasis for Christians ; implying, of course, that 
they who were the disciples of Christ habitually invoked his 
name. Paul, in giving an account before the Jews of his 
conversion, relates that Ananias came to him and said : Arise, 

I be baptized, and wash away thy sins, invoking the name of 
the Lord ;± where the word Lord evidently means Christ 
Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, says : Whosoever shall 
call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved fi where the 
context clearly shows that Christ is meant. The same apos- 
tle, in addressing the Corinthians, at the commencement of 
his epistle to them says : Unto the church of God at Corinth 
.... with all that in everyplace invoke the name of the LordJe- 
sus, 6 i. e. all Christians; naming them just as we have seen 
Ananias did, by mentioning that distinguishing act of their re- 
ligion, viz, invocation upon Jesus, which separated them from 
all others. The same Paul, when he had a thorn in the flesh, 
the messenger of Satan to buffet him, besought the Lord thrice, 
that it might depart from hirnJ Here the context makes it 
quite certain, that by the Lord, Christ is meant. The same 
writer again points out Christians, in his first epistle to Timo- 
thy, by using the phrase they that call upon the Lord, as de- 
scriptive of them. 8 

1 Acts 7: 59. 4 Acts 22. 16. 7 2 Cor. 12:8. 

2 Acts 9: 13 ; 14. Rom. 10: 1& 8 2 Tim. 2: 22. 

3 Acts 9: 21. 6 1 Cor. 1:2. 

25* 



294 CHRISTIANITY 

Moreover the holy apostle, who in the visions of God saw 
heaven opened, tells us that the four living < i, and 

four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, hawing 
y on* <f them harps, and golden rials full of odours J But 
what arc these odours, which the leaden of the heavenly choir 
present, in the posture of humble adoration, to the Lamb? 
The writer has told us: They Care the PRATERS of the saints, 
i. e. of the church on earth. Here then it ifi made certain, that 
the Lamb is the objeel of invocation by the saints on earth, 
and of religious adoration by the host of heaven above. 

Paul does not scruple to direct the same expression of 
homage and praise t<> the Saviour, as to God the Father. At 
the close of his epistle to the Hebrews he says: Jesus Ohr 

whom be glory fon ver and < ver, Amen: 1 Peter says the same 
thing : Grow in grace, and in the knowledge of <>nr Lord and 
Saviour Jesus Christ} to him be ylory both now and forever, 
Amen? 

In heaven they do the same. Says the holy apostle who 
enjoyed the virions of God : Every creature which is in heaven, 
and on t/<>> earth, and such as an in the sea, and all that an 
them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and 
power, be nn?<> Him that sitteth upon the throne, ami nnto the 
Lamb, forever and everJ Here, brethren, is that Lamb of 
God, who has taken away the si ns of the world, on the throne of 
the universe ; here he is represented as worshipped by all 
heaven, in the -aim.' manner as He is, who sitteth with him 
on the throne. 

And why should not this be so, if the same apostle who re- 
lates this, is worthy of credit in his other declarations? lie 
has said, that in tin beginning was the Word, and the Word < 
with God, and the Word \va> God; 5 He has told us that 
aU things wert made by him, and that without him was nothing 
made, which was tnadefi He has said of the Son of God: 
This is the true God and eternal life"' Neither the grammati- 

1 Rev. r>: 8. 4 Rev. 5: 13. 7 1 John :». 90. 

2 Heb. 18: 21. * John 1: 1. 

B Pet •'*: 18. 6 John 1: 3. 



A DISTINCT Ki LIGION. 

tin- idiom of the writer, allows as t<» re- 

this lasl declaration to any oilier than tin- Sa\iom\ 

Paul also has given as sufficient reason i<> regard th« 

\v as tl i of our worship, lie lias declared him to 

be ' - /-.' 1 1«* lias affirmed of him, that 

aid the foundation of the earth : that the 

i of hie hande ; and that while they <d( shall 
i the same, and his years shall not faUfi He has said, 
that by him all things were created that are in heaven, and that 
i, risible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or do* 
i, or principalities, or powers ; all things were created by 
hi i, . r him? In writing to Titus, the same apostle has 

scribed the gospel as teaching us to hokfor the blessed hope, 
I glorious appearing of the (/rent God even our Saviour Jesus 
( %rist : [ for bo, I cannot doubt, the original ought to be trans- 
lated. 

Arc any inclined now to ask the question : How can all this 
be true ? My answer is, that facts themselves are all that it 
concerns us to know. The manner in which things can be, 
IS not important to us ; and is indeed unknown, even in re- 
spect to the most common phenomena of nature. Facts I have 
now given you, on the authority of the divine word. If you 
ask : How could Christ be God and man ? I answer with 
Paul : God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself; 5 
God w</$ manifest in the flesh ; 6 for after all the controversy 
about the genuineness of this text, it seems quite evident to 
me that it must be acknowledged, according to the rules of 
criticism. Nor is what Paul asserts any more than John has 
told us, when be -ays that the Word teas God, 1 and then de- 
clares that the Word was madeflesh, and dwelt among us.* The 
same apostle too has told us of assertions which the Saviour 
himself made, that amount to the same thing. Whoever, said 
Jesus to Philip when he had asked to see the Father, whoever 

1 Rom. !): .->. 4 Tit. 2: 13. 7 John 1. 1. 

2 IK!). 1: 10—12. 5 2 Cor. 5: 19. * John 1: H. 

3 Col. 1: 16. 6 1 Tim. 3: 16. 



206 CHRISTIANITY 

hath $een me. hatl, sr< i) tin- Father. 1 And again, lam in the 
F<ith> r, <m<i the Father in me. 2 

Tli: DUgh lor the humble Christian, who receives the 

Scriptures as the WOrd of God, and the only rule of bifl faith 
and practice. You, my brethren, who are to meet here in the 
Saviour's name, will, J trust, call upon that name. You will 
hip the Father in him, and him in the Father. The man- 
ner in which natures human and divine are united in the per- 
son of the Saviour, you need nut impure after ; you ought 
not to do it ; for you can find no precedent for so doing, in the 
book of God. The fact is all you need to know ; and the 
fact you ought as Christians to believe, and you must believe, 
if you pay implicit deference to the authority of the Bible. 

This then is another of the distinctive traits of Christians 
as such. They are not simple worshippers of God, the God 
of nature ; but worship God in Christ and through him. May 
your practice, in this respect, be like that of Paul, and Peter, 
and Stephen, and John, and of others whose names are writ- 
ten in the Lamb's book of life ! 

I shall notice but one more distinctive trait of Christians, 
on the present occasion. This is, 

4. That they obey the commandments of Chi-ist. 

If ye love )iu\ said the Saviour to his apostles, keep my 
(oiHmandments.^ Again : He that hath my commandments^ 
and keepeth them* he it is that lovctJi meA Once more : If a 
man l<>>-> me, he will htep my words. 5 On another occasion 
lid to them : If ye keep my comma ml un mt$, ye sladl abide 
in my li.re ; and again -S> Ye are my friends, if ye do what- 
r I command you. 1 

The Batte apostle who has recorded this has said : Hereby 
do n-< know that we khow him, if we hop his commandm 
IL thai soith I know him. cmdbeepeth nut his co mm timdm 

is <i /ior, and the truth is not in himr 

To the same purpose Paul speaks, when addressing the 



1 .Mm 14: S. 9. 4 John 14: 21. 7 John 15: 14. 

1 JohD 14: 11. 5 John 14: 23. 8 1 John 2: 3,4. 

3 John 14: 15. • John 15: 10. 



A DISTINCT RELIGION. 207 

at Rome shall we thai are < 

$in, lire my /• And again: Shall 

we >■ tiinirr fjrmt I \id£ 

Qnoe more : Tfong wtoM fam ikri I > <</" ( 7//-/>7. & 

now of hi- 

But there would be no end of citing teatta like these, tVom 

imrnt. I will only add, on the present oeea- 
i. that whatever eri dene ei any man may think himself 
to have of being a Christian, if he have not this, tliat he 
the eommamlments of the Saviour, his religion is 
nothing more than profession, empty profession. No matter 
how orthodox he may be in his sacculations ; if lie be not so 
in hi- | . it is all in vain. Faith without works is 

"f. The devils believe and tremble ;* but the devils do not 
obey. 

I have now done with this part of my discourse. I have 
left, and must of necessity leave, many points untouched, 
which belong to the Christian's system of faith and practice, 
and which serve to distinguish him from religionists of other 
names. I designed only to bring to view some of the more 
prominent and important points, which render this distinction 
palpable. I must hasten to my 

II. General head of discourse, which was designed for 
inquiry respecting the meaning of the declaration, that Christ 
will be in the ?nidst of those tcho assemble in his name. 

I shall say but few words in regard to this ; as it needs but 
little illustration. When Christ says he will be in the midst 
of his disciples, the simple meaning is, that he will be present 
to aid and to bless them. It is of the same import as the 
phrase to be with one. Christ promised his ministers to be 
with them always, i. e. to aid and bless them always. So he 
promises Christians, whenever they assemble in his name, to 
help and to bless them. 

This promise will be fulfilled. His veracity is pledged for 
its fulfilment. But when Christians are every day conven- 

r 

1 Rom 6: 2. 3 Rom 8: 9. A James 2: 19, 20. 

2 Rom. 6: 15. 



208 CHRISTIANITY 

incr in erery part of the earth, and in a multitude of places 
widely distant from each other arc meeting together at the 
same moment) how can his pledge be redeemed, unless Christ 

ha< a power of omnipresence ? It is difficult, father (I may 

) it is beyond our ability, even to imagine the possibility 
of this, unless the Saviour is invested essentially with divine 
attributes. You, my brethren, who are to meet here in his 
name, believe this ; and you have no difficulty therefore in 
giving full credit to what our text asserts. On this subject, 
I have no fears of raising your expectations too high. Only 
perform the conditions required of you as the disciples of 
Christ ; meet here in his name, on his account, as his humble, 
devoted, obedient followers ; and he will be in the midst of 
jfOtf, he will aid and bless you, in all that you are called to do 
and suffer for his name's sake. 

It is with the design of so doing, and with the hope you 
may obtain the precious blessing which the Saviour has 
promised in our text, that you have associated yourselves into 
a regular church, and erected this goodly edifice, where we 
are now assembled. You consecrated yourselves to your 
God and Saviour, when you first united with his children, in 
order to approach his table, and celebrate the memory of his 
dying love. You repeated these solemn vows, before him 
who searches the heart, and before your fellow men, when 
you formed the religious association who are here habitually 
to meet in the name of Christ, and pay their homage to him. 
And now you come, having consecrated yourselves to him 
who redeemed you, to consecrate this holy temple, the fruit 
of your cares and labours, to him whose presence you hope 
will dwell in it — will be always here in the midst of you, 
whenever you a-semble. 

Come then, brethren, unite now with me, whom you have 
made the organ of communicating your views and feelings 
on the present occasion, in the dedication of this sacred 
structure to him. 

O God, whom the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot 
contain; who art worshipped in thine eternal courts above, 



A DISTIN4 r i;riK,in\. 

by the 1 assembly and church of the Ural bora ; this 

. in which we are assembled, with all that belongs to 

it ; this trni}.!. reared by mortal hands, and designed for thy 

kte to thee I To thee, Father of our 

Spirits and framer of our bodies, our kind preserver, our nm- 
il b nefactor,* crate it I Saviour of sinners, Lamb 
of God who takes! away the Bins of the world, who redeemeet 

by thy blood, we dedicate it to thee I To thee, 
rnal Spirit, our Sanctifier, our Guide, our Comforter, we 

consecrate iil King eternal, immortal, invisible, only wise 
Son, and Holy Ghost, forever let it be sacred 
to th 

And now Lord God our Saviour, accept this voluntary 
offering and consecration of ourselves, and ours, to thee ! 
Fulfil now the desire of our souls, in respect to that gracious 
presence, for which thy disciples assembling here are en- 
couraged to hope ! To the latest generation, may multitudes 
convene here in thy name, and find delightful proof that thou 
art in the midst of them ! May this goodly structure, which 
has now been consecrated to thee, survive the vicissitudes of 
time, and be a soul refreshing place, for those who love thy 
precious name, down to the period of thy second coming ! 
Then with the wreck of countless worlds, let it crumble to 
dust, at the sound of thine awful trumpet ; and let those who 
have worshipped thee here, in the spirit of the gospel, at thy 
command shake off the sleep of ages ; burst the bars of death, 
and rise in thy glorious image, with songs and everlasting joy 
upon their heads ; — rise and meet with all the ransomed of 
the Lord before thy throne, to worship in that temple not 
made with hands, eternal in the heavens ! Ame>~. 



, 



L i: T T B R 






AV I I. L I A H E. C II A N N I XG . J). J). 



niE m bje( r oj 



KKLKilOUS LIBERTY. 



[Pi;im\p< the object of the following Letter may seem to the reader to 

have !>eeu merely of a temporary nature ; ami inasmuch as the immediate 
■sioo of writing it baa long since ceased to operate, it may be deemed 
more advisable, by some, to omit the piece in question. My reasons for 
republishing it. however, are not Bhmply those which originally and spe- 
cially induced me to write the Letter/ It u some nxteen yean mice it 
was published ; and although three large editions of it were then printed, 
it has long since been out of the market, and not procurable for those who 
wished a cony of it The subjects discussed are moss which, in a gene- 
ra] point of view, can never cease to be interesting in a Republic, like 
OOT. The truths which I have endeavoured to illustrate and vindicate, 
are mote which ought to be ever kepi watchfully in view among US, and 
can never be over-estimated. It will be -ecu. by the Pottscr ip i to this 
t. (written for the present edition), that reasons for vindicating re- 
ligious Liberty are not wanting, in the present posture and proceedings 
>me religious partisans. It i< time to look at tins whole matter once 
more, ami is it were (k novo. Especially am 1 desirous of bringing this 
subject before the public, at the present time, because our brethren in 
England and on the continent of Europe, are beginning, at last, to open 
their eyes upon the subject of ('larch and State, and to throw off the 
shackles which civil governments impose upon their consciences in mat- 
ters of religion. They look to our views, as resulting from actual ex- 
perience, and are anxious to know our feelings an ! opinions in such cir- 
cumstances If I might indulge the hope that my feeble voice would he 
heard across the Atlantic, by those who are Btmggling for the liherties 
of trtte Protestantism against the rulers of the darkness of this world, 
and against spiritual wickedness in high places, I would tain believe, 
that a Statement of the ground, which we take and vindicate here, may 
be of some use to them in their inquiries. At all events, we need at 
home to have our own mind- stirred up in the way of remembrance j for 
we are yet tiot a little short of attaining to entire and rightful liberty ami 
equal justice. There are two ways of hindering the enjoyment oi such 
liberty: the one. open and direct, by oppressive ordinances; the other 
under the broad shield of law; which, however, when thus 

employed, is covert and out of public view. We have little or no rea- 

2G 



o02 INI INDUCTION. 

to fear the former; under the Utter a perl of oar community, as 
] believe, sre now Buffering. 

The position I have taken is somewhat hold: and mere ire not want- 
in- those who will doubtless deem it assuming. I can only sai n< r 

or (to modify this a link' in translating it) read first 
and then judge It' 1 bare exhibited a narrow party spirit, such as the 
Orthodox air charged with cherishing — then smite; and even more than 
once, li' I have merely given voice, as a freeman, to th< 
some hundreds of thousands in this Commonwealth; if, although I may 
have nothing extenuated, I have ^ti!l not set down aught in main 
those, who feel that my complaints an- uttered in order to reach their 
car-, ami who do not rehab tin- ides of discussing such matters before 
public, will, I hope, take irhat 1 say in good part, anil regard it as the 
v.»ir,. of/ri / '/'v monition, ami not the obloquy of an enemy. My earthly 
course is nearly finished; and I can have but little to fear from any in- 
justice that I complain of. -<• mr a- it respects myself Hut he who 
knows all hearts, know- that I love my country, ami love this noble 
( lommonwealth, and earnestly wish for it- highest prosperity ami welfare 
1 feel a- if I were nowgiving my last testimony to the great cause of re- 
ligious Liberty ; and feeble a- it may be, I <1«> trust that it i> sincere, and 
animated bj a sense of sacred duty. Every mite may do some good 
when rightly ami timely contributed; for it helps to -well the aggregate 
feeling in favour of religious rights and liberty which are absolute and 
complete. Most sincerely do 1 hope, ere 1 unit the world, to Bee all 
grounds of Buch complaint, as 1 feel compelled to make, removed, ami 
this Republic become an example to the whole earth of true religious 
freedom ami equal justice in their fullest sense. 

My Brethren in sentiment, in whose behalf I speak, (although not as 
their constituted representative), will cheer me, as I 'hope, in my arduesu 
task, by their approbation. To those of whom I complain. J would most 

respectfully say: It' yon acknowledge me a- a fellow-Citizen ami;; free- 
man, yon will concede to me the right to speak, so long as I observe the 

rule- of decorum, of moderation, ami of comity. Such of von it- arc 

truly Liberal, (ami many Buch there are), will even thank me for turning 
your attention to matters of serious complaint and uneasiness. To the 
partisans among those of whom we complain, whose practical maxim 
tns to he A >t Co nihil) I have only to say, that 1 do not feel 

myself bound to he silent, because they do net like to hear me speak 

about BUCh matter-. Sure I am. that they cannot with any truth say, 
that it i- no concern of mine. Kvery citizen of the State has a d 

and deep interest in the subjects discussed. If the day of reflection 
should come, and a change of the course whieh some influential men 

pursuing should he tin- result of it. they will then thank me for the BUg- 
gestions I have mad-', however unwelcome the whole BUbject may now 

I.e. 1 have not uttered one word for the sake of reproach. What may 
•li at first i iew to look like this, is nothing more than a simple state- 
ment of fa.t-. or a picture of grievances. While undertaking to admon- 
ish others of wrong, I ought to he the last to do a wrong, like to that of 
which 1 complain. — M. S.| 



L E T T E It. 



Sib, 

In* perusing the volume which you have recently publish- 
ed, entitled ' Discourses, Reviews, and Miscellanies/ and al- 
so in reading your 4 Election Sermon' recently delivered be- 
fore the Legislature of this State, I have met with some pas- 
sages which contain charges, expressed or implied, against 
the denomination of Christians in Massachusetts who are 
called Orthodox or Trinitarian*, that seem to me to deserve 
serious and candid examination. If they are indeed well 
founded, it is proper that the community should know it ; nor 
can it be taken amiss, that you have given your name to the 
world as a pledge that they can be established and made good. 
But if they have no foundation in point of fact, you will join 
with me in saying that they ought in justice no longer to p t ass 
current under the sanction of your name, but that the pub- 
lic should be correctly informed respecting them. 

Passages in your recently published works, of the nature 
to which I have above adverted, are somewhat numerous. 
But as it is not my object to multiply quotations, or to dis- 
pute about words, I shall content myself in this place with 
making merely a few extracts. 

My first extract shall be from your Election Sermon re- 
cently published. 

" You have all heard of the outward evils, which religion, 
when thus turned into tyranny, has inflicted ; how it has dug 
dreary dungeons, kindled tires for the martyr, and invented in- 
struments of exquisite torture. But to me all this is less fearful 
than its influence over the mind. When I see the superstitions 



30-4 RKLieiOUfl LXBBBTT. 

which it has fastened on die conscience, the spiritual terrors 
with which it baa haunted and subdued the ignorant and sus- 
ceptible, the dark appalling views of God which it has spread 

far and wide, the dread of inquiry which it lias struck into su- 
perior understandings and the servility of spirit which it has 
made to pass for piety, — when I see all this, the lire. tb< 
fold, and the outward inquisition, terrible as they are, seen t<» 
me inferior evils, I look with a solemn joy on the heroic spir- 
its, who have met freely ami fearlessly pain and death in the 
cause of truth and human rights. JJut there are other victim- 
of intolerance, on whom I look with unmixed sorrow. They are 
those, who, spell-bound by earl j prejudice or by intimidations 

from the pulpit and the press, dare not think; who anxiously 

stide ever] doubt or misgiving in regard to their opinions, as if 

to doubt were a crime : who shrink from the seekers alter truth 
as from L&fectipD ; who deny all virtue, which does not wear the 

livery of their own Bed : who, surrendering to others their best 
powers, receive unresistingly a teaching which wars against rea- 
son and conscience ; and who think it a merit to impose on such 
as live within their influence, the grievous bondage, which they 
hear themselves. How much to be deplored is it, that religion, 
the very principle which is designed to raise men above the 
judgment and power of man, should become the chief instru- 
ment of usurpation over the soul. 

M h it said, that, in this country, where the rights of private 
judgment, and of speaking and writing according to our convic- 
tions, are guarantied with every solemnity by institutions and 
laws, religion can never degenerate into tyranny; that here its 
whole influence must conspire to the liberation and dignity of 
the mind Y % I answer, we discover little knowledge of human 
nature, if we ascribe to constitutions the power of charming to 

Bleep the spirit of Intolerance and exclusion. Almost every 
Other ba<l passion may BOOner be put to rest ; and for this plain 
reason, that intoleiance alw;i\s shelters itself under the name 

and garb of religious zeal Because we live in a country, where 

the grOSS, OUtWard, visible chain is broken, we must not con- 
clude that we are necessarily free. There are chains not made 

of iron, which eat more deeply into the soul. An espionage of 

bigotry may as eft dually close our lips and chill our hearts, as 
an armed and Jmiidred-e\ ed police. There are countless w. 
b\ which men in a free country may encroach on their neigh- 
bours 1 lights. Ill religion the instrument is ready made and al- 

waya at hand. 1 refer to Opinion, combined and organised in 



Ki: ;n. 

iid sw;i\.«| liv the r|.r-\. \\C s:iy \n e have no Imjuisi- 

tioo. Bui a sect, skilful)} organized, trained to utter one cry, 
combined to cover with reproach whoever maj differ from 
tbei . to drown the free expression of opinion bj denun- 

ciations of heresy, and to strike terror into the multitude by 
joint and perpetual menace, — such a seel i> at perilous and pal* 
pr to the intellect as the Inquisition. h thi minister as 

efiectuallj as the sword The present age is notorious!] sectar 
rian, and therefore hostile to liberty." — pp. 85 

Again, in the newly printed volume of your DlSCOQl 
ty : 

u We do not deny, that our brethren have a right to form s 
judgment as to our Christian character. Bui we insist that we 
have a right to be judged hy the fairest, the most approved, and 

the most settled rules, hy which character can he tried ; and 

when these are overlooked, and the most uncertain standard is 

applied, we are injured ; and an assault on character, which 
rests on this ground, deserves no better name than defamation 
and persecution. 

" I know that this > suggestion of persecution will he indignant- 
ly repelled hy those, who deal most largely in denunciation. 
But persecution is a wrong or injury inflicted for opinions ; and 
surely assaults on character fall under this definition. Some 
per- in to think, that persecution consists in pursuing er- 

ror with fire and sword ; and that therefore it has ceased to ex- 
ist, except in distempered imaginations, because no class of 
Christians among us is armed with these terrible weapons. But 
no. The form is changed, but the spirit lives. Persecution has 
given up its halter and fagot, but it breathes venom from its 
lips, and secretlv blasts what it cannot openly destrov. — pp. 561, 
562. 

In the same volume, when speaking (as in the preceding 
extract) against a " system of exclusion and denunciation in 
religion," you make the following remarks : 

•• Inothei important consideration is, that this system of ex- 
cluding men of apparent sincerity, for their opinions, entirely 
subverts \\-cq inquiry into the Scriptures. When once a particu- 
lar system is surrounded by this bulwark ; when once its de- 
fenders have brought the majority to believe, that the rejection 
of it is a mark of depravity and perdition ; what but the name of 
liberty is left to Christians ? The obstacles to inquiry are as 

26* 



30C RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 

real, and may be as powerful, as in the neighborhood of tlio In- 
quisition. The multitude dare not think, and the thinking dan 
not speak. The right of private judgment may thus, in a rVo- 

testant country, be reduced to a nullity. It is true, that nan 

; to the Scriptures ; but they are told before thej 1:0. that 

they \\\\\ be driven from the church on earth and in heaven, mi- 
le-- they find in the Scriptures the doctrines which are embodi- 
ed in the popular creed. They are told, indeed, to inquire R>1 

themselves ; but they are also told, at what points inquiry must 

anise ; and the Sentence of exclusion hangs over them, if they 
happen to Stray, with some of the best and Wisest men, into for- 
bidden paths. Now this ' Protestant liberty,' is, in one respect, 
more irritating than Papal bondage. Jt mocks as well as en- 
claves u& Jl talks to us courteously as friends and brethren, 
whilst it rivets our chains. It invites and even charires us to 
look with our ov\ n e\es, but with the same breath warns us 
a,L r ain<t seeing anything which Orthodox eyes have not seen be- 
fore as. Is this a state of things favorable to serious inquiry 
into the truths of the gospel ; yet, how long has the church 
been groaning under this cruel yoke? 

M Another objection to this system of excluding professed dis- 
ciples of Christ, on account of their opinions, is. that it is incon- 
sistent with the great principles of Congregationalism. In 

churches, where the power is lodged in a few individuals, who 
are supposed to be the most learned men in the community, the 
work of marking out and excluding the erroneous may seem 
]e<> difficult But among Congregationalists, the tribunal be- 
fore which die offender is to be brought is the whole church, 
consistinir partly of men in bumble circumstances, and of un- 
improved minds: partly of men engaged in active and pressing 
business : and partly of men of education, whose studies have 

been, directed to law and medicine. Now is this a tribunal be- 
fore which the most intricate points of theology are to be dis- 
CUSSed, and serious inquirers are to answer for opinions, which 
the) have perhaps examined more laboriously and faithfully than 
all their judges r Would a church of humble men, conscious 

of their limited opportunities, consent to try, for these pretend- 
ed crimes, professing Christians, as intelligent, as honest, and 
exemplary as themselves? It is evident, that in the business of 

excluding men for opinions, a church can be little more than 
the tool of their minister, or a few influential members ; and 

our churches are, 111 general, too independent and too uptight 

to take this part in SO solemn a transaction. To correct their 



RKLIOIOUfl LXBEI 307 

il to quicken their zeal on this point, we are now 
threatened with ne* tribunals, or Consociations, whose otlice it 
will he t«> n\ ministers for their errors, to iasped tin' churches, 

and to advise ami assist them in the extirpation ol* * heresy/ 
\\ hil.M the laity air slumberim:, tin' ancient and tier cmMitu- 
tion of our church: leutly undermined, and is crumhlini: 

awny. Bioee argument is insufficient to produce uniformity of 
opinion, se muat be had to more powerful instruments of 

miction; [ mean, to ecclesiastical coumrs, And are this 
pie indeed prepared t* submit to this most degrading form of 

_«• : a vassalage, which reaches and palsies the mind, and 
imposes On it the dreams and fictions of men, foi the everlasting 

truth of God I" — pp. 565, 56& 

Once more, in your preface to the same volume you say ; 

k - It is due to myself to say, that the controversial character of 
I part of this volume, is to he ascribed, not to the love of dispu- 
tation, but to the circumstances in which I was called to write. 
It was my lot to enter on public life at a time when this 
part of the country was visited, by what I esteem one of its 
sorest scourges ; I mean, by a revival of the spirit of intole- 
rance and persecution. I saw the commencement of those sys- 
tematic efforts, which have been since developed, for fastening 
on the community a particular creed. Opinions, which I thought 
true and purifying, were not only assailed as errors, but brand- 
ed as crimes. Then began, what seems to me one of the gross 
immoralities of our times, the practice of aspersing the charac- 
ters of exemplary men, on the ground of differences of opinion 
as to the moot mysterious articles of faith. Then began those 

ults on freedom of thought and speech, "which, had they 
succeeded, would have left us only the name of religious liberty. 
Then it grew perilous to search the Scriptures for ourselves, and 
to speak freely according to the conviction of our own minds. 

w that penalties, as serious in this country as fine and Im- 
prisonment, were, if possible, to be attached to the profession of 
liberal views of Christianity, the penalties of general hatred and 
scorn : and that a degrading uniformity of opinion was to be 
imposed by the severest persecution, which the spirit of the age 
would allow. At such a period,! dared not be silent To op- 
se what I deemed error, was to me a secondary consideration. 
My first duty, as I believed, was, to maintain practically and re- 
solutely the rights of the human mind; to live and to suffer, if 
to suffer were necessary, for that intellectual and religious liber- 



303 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 

t\, \\ hirli I prise incomparably more than my civil rights. I felt 

myself called, not onlj to plead in general for freedom of thought 

and speech! but, W hat was moiv important and tr\ ing, to aaact l this 

freedom by action. I abould have fell myself disloyal to truth 
and freedom, had I confined myself to vague commonplaces 
about our rights, and forborne to bear m\ testimony expressly 
and special!) to proscribed and persecuted opinions. The times 
required thai a voice of Btrengtb and courage should be lifted 
up, and 1 rejoice, thai I was found among those by whom it was 

Uttered and sent far and wide." — (>}>. vii. viii. 

On the tenor and spirit of these accusations throughout, 
(which however only accord with a multitude of other pas- 
9 in your writings), it is not my purpose here to remark 
in a particular manner. I reserve what I have more special- 
ly to Bay respecting these, for another part of the present 
Letter. 

I trust you will have the ingenuousness to avow at once, 
that it was your intention in these passages, and in others of 
the like nature, to characterize the efforts, the arguments, 
the designs, and the cause of those who are usually denomi- 
nated Orthodox or Trinitarians in this Commonwealth. 

You will permit me, in the following pages, to name the 
of men Orthodox, to whom I here advert, and to call 
their liberal opponents Unitarians, I do this merely for the 
sake of convenience and brevity ; not for the sake of making 
any claims for one party, or of casting any odium on the 
other, by the use of such appellations. 

In the above extracts then, (as often elsewhere), you have 
charged the Orthodox with a settled, steadfast, unrelenting 

purpose to suppress all free inquiry respecting matters of re- 
ligion, to cover with reproach those who may differ from 
themselves, to drown the W-rc expression of opinion by de- 
nunciations of heresy, and to strike terror into the multitude 
by joint and perpetual menace. In addition to all this, you 
represent them as Baying: "Since argument is insufficient 
to produce uniformity of opinion, recourse must be had to 
powerful instruments of conviction, to E< i LI masti- 
CAX Coi ki B. M 



ULI0IO1 - i.ir.r.KTV. 309 

If there could be an y doubt whom you mean to charac- 

. in the | x.tracted from your Election Sermon, 

l from the preface lo the volume of your Work-, the dee- 

hrations in the Appendix to this volume, in the pieee which 

nmences on page 557, put the matter beyond all contro- 

1 will not therefore expend any time in labouring to 

itdiah a point bo perfectly dean 1 take it for granted 

that you yourself are altogether too frank and ingenuous, 
D to protend that you did not mean to eharaeterize Ortho- 
dox Christians in general throughout this State, and in par- 
ticular the clergy who belong to this denomination of Chris- 
tians And 1 take this for granted, beeause I cannot help 
believing that no Unitarian who reads your writings, has 
ever once suspected, or ever will suspect, that you meant to 
characterize any other than the Orthodox ; and no Orthodox 
man who reads the whole of your works, can possible suppose 
otherwise. You aim at real existences, not imaginary, future, 
fantastic ones ; I mean those which you believe to be real. 
The friends with whom I am accustomed to think and act, 
do not once suspect you of laying out your energies, in be- 
labouring what you believe to be u a man of straw." 

For myself then, as one among the denomination of the 
Orthodox, I take my full share of all the remarks which you 
have made against them. One and all of my brethren, with 
whom I am united in sentiment and affection, feel, so far as 
I know 7 , in the same manner as I do, with respect to the 
design of your remarks. We understand you to aim these 
accusations directly at us ; for it does not signify to go round 
and round this matter, as afraid to look at it or to touch it. 
We know that the accusation and reproaches are intended to 
strike us ; and we stand up, without a blush or a trembling 
nerve, before the tribunal of denunciation where you have 
arraigned us, to hear our sentence with that fortitude, we 
would fain hope, which it becomes those to exercise who sin- 
cerely believe that they are in the right. If we now take 
the liberty to move an arrest of your judgment, we hope you 
will not refuse us a hearing. It is natural, you know, for 



310 i [QIOI a LIBEB 

men who are accused of crimes that are as to reputa- 

\{ not as to life, to appeal, in case of condemnation, to a 
higher tribunal, if such appeal be lawful; and if not, to move 
an arrest of judgment, when the verdict or sentence does not 
agree with facts and evidence* Above all will they do this, 
when they know the accusations to be wholly unground 
and that they are truly innocent of the matters laid to their 
charge. 

I acknowledge, indeed, that a few solitary passages are 
found in your writings, in which you seem to manifest a 
little relenting on the subject of the severe and high wrought 
language with which you reproach me and my brethren. 
You sometimes say, that you aim not at Oah'inists, but at 
(hlvinism ; that there are men among the party whom you 
Oppose, whose hearts are better than their heads, and whose 
religious character you feel bound to respect ; and other 
things of the like nature. But such declarations are "few 
and far between." They seem most evidently to be the 
result of mere constraint, when they do appear ; constraint 
arising probably from a sense of decorum, and apparently 
too from an apprehension, that a strenuous advocate of liber- 
ality does not appear altogether to the best advantage, while 
he is uttering indiscriminate condemnation against more than 
one half of the community in which he lives, and which, if it 
be well grounded, falls with more justice still and with 
heavier Wright, on the blessed Pilgrims who laid the founda- 
tion of his country's happy freedom and greatm 

It is my most serious conviction, arising from a perusal of 
your writings as a whofe that no one can justly affirm us to 
be under obligation to you on the score of benevolence and 
kindness, because of the exceptions to which I have just re- 
ferred. A native Fellah of Egypt, being in company with 
a recent European traveller there of great spirit and intelli- 
. was asked by the latter, (who had been expatiating in 
prai.M' of the Ta-dia of Egypt, and on the happy, nourishing, 
and safe condition of the country), whether he did not . 
with him as to the munificent and generous character of his 



i ; i i tOIOt I i ir.n 311 

:n. To this the Fellah replied, witb I most signifi- 
•k. and elevating his hands toward heaven ; u God Is 

ii ! Our lord, the Pasha, gives with one hand, ami tal 
awav with tir ." Bo it 18, my dear Sir, with your praig 

In some solitary passages, you allow, far decency's sake and 

in order tppearance of liberality, that there are 

mong us who have a share of common sense in re- 

•t to most subjects, and afew that have a little smattering 
of what the world deems learning; possibly two or thr 
Orthodox individuals may he found, in the whole State, that 
havt ee of cultivated taste. But in other pa- 

ges almost without number, you rank the whole together, and 

iessly avow that none hut bigots, and those who have bid 
adieu to what little understanding they possessed, can be 
found in the ranks of Orthodoxy. And what is more than 
all, some of your partial friends applaud this, and call it bold 
and fearless declaration of the truth, and the development of 
high and commanding genius. 

I cannot say, however, that I feel any gratitude for such 

concessions. It lies on the face of your writings, that they 

are against the tenor of your habitual feelings and views, 

which (in respect to us) are most manifestly those of scorn, 

of indignation, and of unsparing severity. You give with 

one hand, but take away with two. For one, I am unable 

to bring my mind to an attitude, in which such gifts can be 

gratefully accepted. If it be my fault, may heaven forgive 

me for it ! But I am as yet ignorant of its being a fault. I 

have been accustomed to suppose, and do still believe, that 

in a land of religious freedom, the Orthodox have as good a 

right to maintain the doctrines of the Pilgrims, as Unitarians 

have to assail them ; and that the time has not yet come, 

when any one individual, however exalted in his own view 

or in that of his party, can by sweeping denunciations and 

accusations crush all who venture to oppose him. Sir, you 

could not have committed a greater mistake than to assume 

the place of that individual ; to consign us over to the ranks 

of those, who are plotting against the dearest rights of all who 



312 RELIGIOUS LIIJKRTY. 

haw any respect for religion ; to hold us up to the world as 
combined to oppress and to enslave (in a religion et) 

our fellow citizens ; and then to deliver us over to tl; 
oration of all honest men, who prize Christian liberty and 
social freedom. 

There ifl no denying that you have done this. It standi 
in high relief in the preceding extracts, which you cannot 
disavow. More especially you cannot disavow them, 1>< 
most of them are not the hasty effusion of moments when 
excitement was urging on the thoughts and the pen and the 
press, but they are declarations reviewed and republished to 
the world after a series of years, in which, as one would 
naturally suppose, anger had time to cool and resentment to 
be disarmed. They are written in characters so large and 
plain, that k he who runneth may read.' Nor did you, when 
you penned them, believe or expect that Unitarians would 
misinterpret them. I cannot refrain from believing that you 
did bond fide mean them to speak, what they plainly appear 
to apeak. 

And now, when called before such a tribunal, and loaded 
with denunciations which if credited would forever blast our 
character and ruin our influence with the community, we do 
not confess the justice of our sentence, nor acquiesce in it as 
passed by a court which has the legitimate and ultimate 
power of deciding. We have a right to appeal, and we do 
make the appeal, to the public, to honest and candid men of 
all plaofles and panics, we care not what their name may be, 
from the accusations that you have so often and with such 
a&exainpled severity proffered against us, and from the 
sweeping judgment of excision, (excision as to all respect or 
affection or confidence due to us), which you have so often 
pronounced. 

I say '•' here, not because I am deputed by my brethren 
to perform the task of writing this pamphlet, (for this is not the 
. lull becaofte J know their sentiments and feelings on 
these subjects. None of my brethren had even any know- 
ledge that I was engaged in this work, until it was completed. 



RE] U.I01 - 1 li'.l K I V. 

it be accused of acting in i . or of being urged 

on by the calls of parly. Bert knowing them as I do. I \en- 
tmv here to speak in their behalf as well ai my awnt What* 
r is wrong in this letter, they and the public mast put to 
my account alone. Whatever i> just and true, may be con- 
sidered -ken in behalf of all my injured brethren 
well a< myself. 

We are aocused of a Bettled design to invade the religious 
liberties of this community, and to force upon them, sooner or 
later, a creed Which was framed in the dark aires, and is 
worthy only of them. We are charged with an intention to 
erei Meal courts, which, like the Inquisition of old, 

are by terror and compulsion to bring this whole Common- 
wealth to one uniform system of religious doctrine. 

Such allegations it is proper that we should meet ; and in 
order to do this, I shall begin with an open declaration and 
avowal of our sentiments on the subject of religious liberty. 
I cannot indeed vouch for it that every man in this State w r ho 
is named Orthodox, will subscribe to the following sentiments. 
But this I can say fully, that all among the Orthodox with 
whom I am acquainted, whether of the clergy or of the laity, 
do for substance agree in the principles of religious freedom 
that I am now to propose. With most, against whom I sup- 
pose the denunciations in your works are specially directed, I 
have the pleasure of being acquainted ; and I know well their 
feelings and views. I venture therefore to say ice ; and I am 
fully confident, that the avowal made in this manner cannot 
be contradicted by any credible evidence whatever. 

Let us come then to the sentiments of the Orthodox, in re- 
gard to religions liberty. I will be as brief as the nature of 
the case admits. You will pardon me, however, for being 
somewhat particular and specific, because J wish to be defi- 
nitely understood, and to allow of no room for misinter- 
pretation. 

(1) We hold that every individual has a perfect right to 
examine and decide for himself what his own religious senti- 
ments or creed shall be. 
27 



314 RELIGIOUS LIl 

We meaa by this, thai no law of the land, no public 
tlioritv or tribunals, and no private combination or 

men tO which lie hflfl not voluntarily attached him-elf, -hall 
liavc any power n> demand from him any religious 

whatever, i. e. no power .-hall compel him to or- ny 

en ted, by civil penalty either in respect to his person, his 
property, or bia civil or Bocial rights. We are far from I 

Keying that religion has no connection with the prosperity and 

stability of government. We do fully believe that no good 

• eminent en earth can be long maintained and be stable, 

without piety among its Bttbjeete. But this is an influence of 
religion on government and t connection with it, which are 

i/u/trrcf. We do not hold to the expediency, or propriety, or 
safety, of Committing in any sense to the civil government the 

disposal of religious matter.-, in respect either to faith or mo< 

of worship. The only power which we wish ever to see them 
possess, is, that they may cheek what is indecent, or hurtful 
to the public morals, or dangerous to peace on account of the 
injury which it does to others. But this we would alwa 
de-ire to see ellccted, rather as an oil'ence that is indictable 
common law than by statute. We wish always to see civil 
government protect all its citizens in the peaceful enjoyment 
of their religious privileges : to do this, on the same ground 
that WC .-hould wish to see it- subjects protected with respect 
to any other rights that arc dear to them. AVe mean that i 
Mohammed— even, and the dew, and the Dei-t. as well a- the 
Christian, should have the liberty of Worshipping in his own 
way among 08, M long as they demean themselves peaceably, 
and do not invade the rights of others. We know of /to - 

taptian to participation in civil and $ocud righto, and tie right 

of worshipping in aw awn way, or of even not worshipping 

any way, under a government that is free in the m use that 

we would have it : ami all this without any abridgement of 
the rights of citizen.-, without any civil disabilities. At 1 1 . < 
know of only 0HC Case, to which an exception can be m. 
on the ground of religious opinion. This is, where a man de- 
nies the existence of a God, or of a state of future rewa 



Rl r.IGIOl - I ! 

and punishments. In Bach a cai bowtboob*- 

licrntion of an oath can have any binding force at all; and 
therefore we cannot see the propriety of administering one to 
him, either as a witness or a- a magistrate. We cannot help 
on it a- a mere mockery of this solemnity, to admin- 
ister an oath in such eases.* 

Wt - aware how much hm been said, and may he said, 
in t. Mho State having some established form of religion, 

and some particular religious test of office, lint wo are fully 
persuaded, that the evils which Derail from such an arran. 
ment very much outweigh all the good that can ho derived 
from it. Religion, all true religion, is a volustfary offering on 
the part of man to his Creator. A forced freed is no creed. 

Belief , from i?s Own nature and the rery constitution of the 

human mind, nest be free, epovU ane ous, induced by grjwmowf , 
not compelled iff fear or by tin-eats. All professed belief of 
this latter kind, is utterly unworthy of the name. It is an ob- 
ject of abhorrence to God, and of loathing to men. And 
whether an attempt is made to force it on our minds, by the 
terrors of an Inquisitorial tribunal, or by the milder penalties 
of additional taxation and loss of civil rights, it matters not 
with us. We will not say that both of these ways of enforc- 



* Recent decisions of the Supreme Court in this State, seem to have 
settled this matter on the basis, that a denial of the truth- in question 
ild be regarded as affecting the <r<(ti 1 >i!it;i rather than the competency 
of the witness. This will at least save the Courts much time and many 
invidious decisions about character. Plainly it is the easiest way of man- 
aging this difficult matter. But whether it is compatible with the gene- 
ral principle, among all Courts in Christian countries, and (as I believe 
to be the fact) in the Supreme Court of the United States, is another 
question. Practically, as it will operate in most cases, the difference "be- 
te ami other witnesses will he done away. Juries will not l>e 
apt to concern themselves with a matter of this kind. But the Supreme 
Court seem to have fend a kind ofjbresiahi as to the times which are 
coming upon OS. For what could thev do. unaided hy their recent rule, 
with the // e/iaos, and other like philosophers ' It would seem necessary 
for them to tit for office bj going to Germany, and attending courses of 
Lectures on Philosophy, in order to he ahlc to settle the questions : What 
is atheism f Who is tm 



31G RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 

inu it ought to receive equal disapprobation from us ; but we 

do truly Bay, thai both receive our unqualified disapprobation. 

We arc the more confirmed in our views of religious liberty 

thus explained, because we see wvy plainly, that the re- 
ligious opinions which the civil power may sanction to-day, it 
may proscribe to-morrow. Jt has often done so. But be- 
lieving a< ire do, that religion is a matter of immeasurably 
greater interest than everything which pertains to the present 
world, we should he among the last men on earth to commit ■ 
disposal of our faith to tin 1 civil magistrate, who might on > 
day exaJi the Christian religion, and on another trample the 
cross beneath his feet* We set too high a value on this pre- 
cious gift of heaven, ever voluntarily to commit the keeping 
of it to hands which may thus desecrate and abuse it. 

I have only a word to add here, in order to prevent being 
misunderstood, respecting a special obligation which one may 
voluntarily contract, to a religious society who cherish a par- 
ticular belief. 

If we enter such a society, professing the same belief with 
them, and understand it as a condition of membership or good 
standing among them that we continue to cherish the same 
belief, then, in case we do change it, it is plainly lawful and 
proper that the society should withdraw' from its connection 
with D8 as a member. l>ut all this is a thing merely of volun- 
tary obligation. And in no COM whatever do we believe that 
civil disabilities, or penalties, should be connected with any 
tmmunication by a Christian church. 

(2) We not only believe that all men >hould be left free to 

form their religious opinions, without any civil penalties or 

disabilities, but we maintain most fully, that when the religions 

of any one arc formed, he has a right to propagate 

them. t<> defend them, a/a/ to Support them, by his efforts, his J* 

or his influence* 

In all this we understand of course, that in so doing he does 
not .-lander or abuse his neighbor, nor deny him any civil or 

ud right as a member of the community, nor hinder him 
in the lawful exercise of it. Of the former of these faults the 



i:iin. i i.ii:iv. 317 

oi\il law justly may I gnisano tinsl the latter, the 

law if love ami of doing as uv woiiM l»c done by protests. 

w believe most fully, thai men have ■ right to propagate 
ir religious sentiments, if they confine then 

' nd persuasion, and do n<>i il to abase, which is a 

crime in i of the civil law, it being manifestly against 

the peaee of the community. A\ » are ivell aware, ndeed, of 

the mischiefs which may result from a free light to propo- 
or rather irreligious, sentiments of any kind. 
A\ e IviM-w too well, what incalculable evil the publication of 
- as the Age of Reason, the works of Boulanger, 
of Voltaire, ami of Fa Mettrie, have occasioned. We shud- 
der at it as one of the most dreadful of evils, inasmuch as it 
takes hold on eternity and not merely on time. But dread- 
ful as it is, we regard as a still greater evil, the power of civil 
government, or of any ecclesiastical tribunal, to suppress the 
publication of books at its option. To-day it may choose, as 
Frederic the Great did. and the French Directory after him, 
to circulate widely Voltaire, and D'Alembert, and Rousseau ; 
or to-morrow it may spread wide the poison of some heresy 
lurking under a Christian name ; while, at the same time, it 
inhibits all antidotes to these tremendous evils. The liberty 
of the press, the unreserved liberty of it, is in our view funda- 
mental to religious liberty. If the press be, as it doubtless 
■tmotines is, a most terrible instrument of doing evil, it is 
also one of the most efficient of all instruments in doing 
good. We would forever leave it open and free to do good ; 
and if the liberty to do evil must come along with this, (and 
we do not see how it is possible to prevent it), why then the 
friends of truth must trust to argument, to reason, to con- 
science, and to God, for triumph over the powers of darkm 
And this they may do, without peril to the cause in which 
they are engaged. 

If I have not liberty to propagate my religious sentiments, 
provided I do it by reason, and argument, and persuasion, 
and with decorum, then I am not free. Liberty in its high- 
est and most precious sense is denied me. As an immortal 

27* 



318 KKLIolOl'S LIBERTY. 

being, I look forward to the time when myself and all around 
me arc to cuter on the M recompense of reward," a final and 
t tenia! one. It' I am serious in my religious views : if I am 
well persuaded that they are true, and this after 
and protracted and patient examination; then I must be 

utterly destitute even of the spirit of -common humanity, if I 

do not desire others to participate with me in this por>ua>ion. 

Were it a matter pertaining merely to their temporal inter- 

-. most of my fellows beings would pronounce me destitute 
of humanity, in case I should not warn those around me 
whom I thought to be in danger, and should not excite them 
to escape from it. l>ut (J the never-dying soul ! The 

awful tribunal of' 4 eternal judgment!" "The tearfulness of 
falling into the hands of the living God, who is a consuming 
lire!" It' I believe that there are unequivocal declarations 
in God's word, (as I truly do), in respect to these tremen- 
dous subjects : if I believe that the impenitent are surely ex- 
posed to endless misery ; that those who reject the Saviour 
as he is offered in the gospel, "shall not see life, but that 
the wrath of God will abide on them p can I as a man of 
any pretensions to benevolence, refrain from telling all this 
to others, from urging it upon them, and from warning them 
of the danger in which 1 sincerely believe them to be? 
Truly, the opponents of our religious views must halt here, 
and candidly avow, that if such are our real convictions, we 
ought in all good conscience to urge them upon our neigh- 
bor^ 

Say. if you please, that we are utterly mistaken ; that all 
our convictions are the result of superstition, or prejudice, or 
bigotry, or of a narrow illiberal education ; yet so long a- we 
KPt in this plight, what are we to do? As honest men, 

mast follow the dictates of our consciences. We acknowl- 
edge the possibility thai these may be blinded, or perverted, 

Or even u 8eared; M but BO long a- we are not convinced that 
this is the Case, how can we do otherwise than propagate our 
Sentiments by all proper methods and with all the earn* 
Dees in our power ? The liberty of doing this, we vahn 



Kri .i.;i«m - f ir.i ilTY. 319 

wich more than we do no I liberty, as the Interests erf 

eternity exc< < -1 in value i time. 

If then it ifl east utial to a lull en joymenl of religious liber- 
ty, thai ihxndd heme the right of propagating their i 
ligi . whatever they may be : and that they 
old be restrained by the laws of the laud, only so Far m 
the laws guard the reputation of individuals who may be 
unjustly assailed, and protect them from injury as to their 
property or rights; it will of course follow, that men should 
right oj defending their sentiments when they are 
/. and of showing, if they can do so, that tin- sentiments 
of those who assail them are erroneous and hurtfuL 

Here, my dear Sir, is a part of religious liberty, on which 
it d< mto me that yourself, and some others who have 

the like zeal with you against the Orthodox, have not suffi- 
ciently reflected, or that you are unwilling to concede it. 
We believe, on the part of the Orthodox, that the sentiments 
of those distinguished men who fled from persecution in the 
old world, in order that they might worship God in the new 
one, and in such a way as best agreed with the dictates of 
their consciences, — that these sentiments do essentially agree 
with the revelation which God has made in the holy Scrip- 
tures. AVe believe this ex ammo, from real persuasion, be- 
cause we have searched the Scriptures and think that we 
find these sentiments tlterc ; not because Calvin, and the 
Reformers, and the Pilgrims believed them. The possibility 
of this, you I trust are prepared to admit. If there are 
bigots among us, as you so often assert, I may still venture 
to 8 . that at least we are not all bigots. Such of us 

then as believe, from investigating the Bible, that the senti- 
ments of the Reformation are found there, hold fast to the 
position that we ought to have the liberty of defending these 
sentiments when they are assailed, and of exposing, if we 
can, the errors of those who assail them. 

But here, it would seem, is the very essence of our crime. 
In your view, it appears to be altogether commendable, that 
Unitarians should deluge the community with Improved 



i [f.IOI - l.ll'.l.l. 

\ - i^'kiih. with the work- of Fellowet, and Belsham, and 
Priestley, and Cappe. and others of the like character; that 
they should form themselves into Tract Societies and dis- 
tribute hundreds of thousands of Unitarian tracts, assailing 
the .M-ntiments of the Orthodox openly, or secretly undi 
mining the principles which they regard as of vital impor- 
tai.ee ; that they should form .Missionary Societies and en- 
deavour not only to spread their principles among the Hindoos 
and cooperate with Kaminohun Roy, hut to traverse the 
regions of the West and South in our own land, and forestal 
the efforts of the Orthodox there ; that they should hold 
public meetings, in which not only the clergy, but legislators, 
civilians, and judges from the highest seat of justice, come 
forward and excite the multitude against Orthodoxy ; that 
they should issue periodicals monthly, weekly, and almost 
daily, in which the public are warned against the Inqwiiitl 
that is forming among them, and the desperate set of bigots 
who are forging chains for their religious liberty; that they 
should declaim against these men and their principles, (their 
alleged or supposed principles), from one Sabbath to another, 
(in which you above all others, unless you are very erro- 
neously represented^ have taken the lead) ; all this, and 
much more of the same nature, is not only lawful in your 
eyes, but altogether commendable. In public and in private, 
from the pulpit and the press, you have not ceased to urge 
on, with all your eloquence, measures of this and the like 
nature. 

But turn now the tablet, and look at the other side of the 
picture. When the Orthodox publish their books, tracts, 
and periodicals, they are represented as bigots who are little 
short of being raving mad. They have neither modesty nor 
humility. When they assoeiate for the purposes of friendly 
ferenee and counsel, and in order to strengthen each 
other's hand-, and to encourage each other to walk in the 
way of their forefathers, they are plotting in order to enclo 
the community in the toiU of the Inquisition; they are form- 
■ h< i LE8IAST* ai. COI BTS," before which all liberal- 



in i [gioi - i [beri r. 821 

men, that choose to think and invi for them- 

selves, arc sooner or later to be brought, and b* made tO 
know that there ifl "»/// MM way of thinking which is to 
tolerated. And since BUCD high crimes and misdemeanor- 
the been laid to their charts the public are told, that 

* the times have required a v *th and ooirauM 

md you rejoice thai roi are fwmd among 

, ,itf, red <ni<l seni few and uric 
(Preface, p. \ii.) Not a movement can th^y make, but they 
ipected of forging manacles for the Liberalists, or at 

M of looking up the iron to make them with. The forg 
to be Bare, arc under ground and out of sight, like the shops 
of the fabled Cyclops ; but you know, as the neighbors of 
those famous blacksmiths of old did, that operations are 
going on, for you hear the hammering, although you cannot 
see the anvils. 

On the claim for yourself of " a voice of strength and 
courage," and of " uttering and sending it far and wide," it 
does not become me to make any remarks. The thing I 
shall leave to speak for itself. But in respect to the assump- 
tion, (in the whole paragraph connected with this declaration, 
and in a multitude of other places in your publication), that 
all which is done by the Orthodox to oppose the views and 
designs of Liberalists is bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and 
unlawful conspiracy against religious liberty, and design to 
bring in again the dark ages of superstition and terror — all 
this assumption, in a land of religious liberty, where every 
man has the same right to defend and propagate his own 
sentiments as his neighbour has to propagate opposite ones; 
all this too, in the State of Massachusetts, in the very 
home of the Pilgrims, and in near proximity to Faneltl 
Hall and the Monument of Bunkeb Hill — it requires 
some meekness to hear without emotion, and to bear with 
becoming patience. 

What reason now, my dear Sir, can you assign, why the 
Orthodox have not as good a right to their Associations and 
Societies, their tracts, their pamphlets, their periodicals, yea, 



322 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 

their OOtftTOfl ; their zeal alio, and their union, and even their 
Mivnuoii>ness ; in order to maintain their own sentiment^ as 
von and those who are with you have to all these in behalf 
of rnitarianisni ? It is a lair question, and I do iafltaN on a 

■< ■!• answer fto it. Will jroa say, that men have no right to 
be in earnest, in defending UUjutnj { I know you do say tl. 
that is. you -ay what manifestly implies this. Jiut then I am 
not to he diverted from my argument by such an answer. 
Who, I ask, has made the decision that Orthodoxy is bigot- 
r\j t i Dr. Channing and his friends allirm it.' Granted; 
but in a land of Ubertij, there is a freedom of thought to be 
allowed ; and by far the greater portion of our community 
have made up their minds, that then is no bigotry in the sen- 
timents in question. But you, Sir, take for granted the very 
question in dispute ; and taking this for granted, you decide 
just as though there was no appeal from your tribunal, and 
consign us over to the ranks of dark designing conspirators 
against the religious liberties of our country. It is too late 
to deny this, or to tread back as to these charges, unless in- 
deed you recall the whole of them. They have gone forth 
k - far and wide," and with a a voice of strength ;" and I ap- 
peal to every honest and ingenuous man on earth, be he 
Unitarian or Trinitarian, whether they do not fairly imply 
all that I have understood them to imply. 

Sir, I repeal it once more, the Orthodox do not understand 
Why they have not the liberty of defending the opinions 
which their ancestors held, in case they do sincerely accord 
with them. That they do sincerely agree, they openly pro- 

Ifl and avow ; and neither yourself, nor any man on earth, 
lias a right to call this in question. Why then do you re- 
proach us, that we are in earnest to defend and to propagate 
our belief? We do from the heart believe, that the eternal 
salvation of our fellow beings is connected with a hearty as- 
i nt to the fundamental principles which we avow. Should 
we not then be entirely destitute even of common humanity; 

Ollld we not l»e treacherous to the cause which we pro) 
t<> believe is infinitely important; should we not iu fact be 



RELIGI01 9 1 IBER1 V. .j2.'> 

typo if we did not manifest our earn< in 

maintaining and propagating our religious sentiment 

Bat you will i the theory of this principle. You 

will lay, however, that the r of our defending and 

■WMagftlipg oor tontimmtn in what von condemn, and that 
tliis n the principal Bubjeel of your severe animad\« 

To \km 1 reply, first, that such is not the case in point of 
You have represented us m having dark, selfish, ma- 
lignant pin as d oic w ai oed at all adventures to iatro" 

duce compulsion into matters of religion, a compulsion C W01 
than the terrors of the Inquisition and the chains which it 

This surely is the blackest crime of all, if i: 
truly ours ; Mid this as surely has nothing to do with the m* 
ner in which we defend and propagate our sentiments. 

Next, as to the manner itself, I have but few remarks to 
make. I am ready to concede, on my part, that I have seen 
and read things among the Orthodox, the manm r of which I 
in some respects heartily disapproved I have never thought, 
that to rail at our opponents was either Christian or courte- 
ous. Above all, every reflecting man must say : Nothing 
can be more improbable, than that this kind of proceeding 
will be likely to convince those who differ from us. Who 
will hear us with patience, when we begin our reproof by 
letting him know that we think him cither a fool or a knave ? 

I am not blinded to this by party zeal. I have seen some 
of it among those whom I warmly love and greatly respect. 
Perhaps I may have shown some of this same disposition in 
my own writings. If so, produce it, and I will tread that 
part under my feet, and make my atonement by unfeigned 
sorrow to an injured public, and to the injured cause of 
Christ. ]>ut if I have indulged in such a mode of writing, I 
am unconscious of it to myself. I disapprove it ; I even 
abhor it ; and yet I know that I am not proof against tempta- 
tion, and that I am exposed to all the weaknesses and faults 
of those around me. 

liut while I thus answer to one part of your complaint by 
confession, 1 must be permitted to say, that so far as I have 



324 RfcLiaKM - 1.11:1 I; 

been able to form a judgment from reading the periodical! 
and pamphlets of both parties, I do think that there ia a wide 
difference between the faults of the Orthodox in this 

and those rf Unitarians. I know of nothing in any n 
Orthodox pnblications, whieh can well compare with th< 
iterated charges against as by Unitarians, from the pulpit and 
the press, of bigotry, of gloomy superstition, of dark and 
fraudulent designs on the religious Liberties of our country, 
of worshipping a God who is a tyrant, of propagating horri- 
ble and blasphemous ideas of the Divinity, of worshipping a 
God who is no better than the devil, of an intention to renew 
the horrors of the Inquisition, of being gloomy, unsocial, 
illiterate misanthropes, enthusiasts, hypocrites, deceivers, and 
Other things of the like nature. It were easy to substantiate 

this charge byabundanoe of evidence; and this too from 
publications which you yourself patronize by your pen, your 
purse, and your approbation. 

J Jut I forbear. The subject is distressing — it is even 
odious. There are men, I know, among your own denomi- 
nation, who see all this and look upon it just as I do. You 
are very far from being agreed among yourselves in rasped 
to such measures, as you must know ; at least if you do not 
know it, your friends must have been uncommonly reserved 
in their communications. There are men among you. and 
not a few, of high and ingenuous feelings, who take the liber- 
ty to believe that the Orthodox have the Bame right to " urge 
hard" as the Unitarians have, and who look with disgust on 
all the accusations of such a nature as those to which I have 
adverted. 

Notwithstanding all that has been done, however, in the 
way <>f making sueh accusations against OS, 1 do not appear 
as an apologist for any severity, or for the calling of hard 
name-, or for ill natured accusations, on the part of myself or 

of my brethren* If we are guilty in this respect, ire stand 

condemned. Hut it is to be expected, that when men are 
charged with a great Crime because they choose to walk, and 

insist on walking, in the old paths of the Reformers ; and 



RELIGIOUS LIBBKTT. 32o 

when tin j sailed ha an angry and bitter and icomful 

manner for so doing ; thai some of them maybe betrayed 

►nd the boundaries which Christian meekness and 

forbearance and eren self-reeped allow. I Bay this is not 

Jthough I do not deny that it is wrong. But if it 

yon, my dear Sir, are one of the last men who 

have a title to reproach us with this wrongs as I Bhall ha 

:i to show still farther in the sequel, before this letter 
is closed. 

Enough for the present, on the religion* liberty which we 
avow and advocate, the liherty to defend our own sentiments 
and to propagate them. No government can properly inter- 
with this right. Nor can any party justly deny 08 such 
a liberty as I have endeavoured to defend. I know of no 
power on earth, which has the right to say to our opponents : 
4 You shall have unbounded liberty of speaking, and writing, 
and acting, in order to defend and propagate your sentiments ; 
but the Orthodox cannot justly claim the same liberty for 
themselves.' 

That men should differ in opinion, is incident to the frailty 
of human nature, and to the imperfection of human knowl- 
edge. But still we hold sacred the right to maintain our 
honest convictions, not by word and writing only, but by the 
use of our property and influence as well as our tongues and 
pens. Our Bill of liights in this State assures us of this 
privilege. We have a right to endow Seminaries in order 
to furnWi teachers of our own sentiments ; w r e have a risrht 
to demand protection in this ; the very same rights in both 
respects as Unitarians have. We have a right to give our 
property to churches of our own way of thinking, and to be- 
lieve and maintain that parishes and churches are not one 
and the same. We have a right to feel ourselves injured 
when property given to Orthodox churches is wrested from 
us under colour of the law. We have rights in a University 
which is the property of the whole State, and was not found- 
ed or exclusively endowed by Unitarians ; at least we have 
such rights, so long as we are not absolutely disfranchised. 

28 



c o'2G BELX6IOU6 LIBERTY. 

We liav. a righl to expect that the property of th< 5 in 

h an establishment, should not be appropriated to the 
purposes of a party; and that the instructors in them should 
not give tin - to one sect only, which has in /< 

although not in name, < xclnded all others from any participa- 
tion with them in these privil We who have childr 
to educate, in common with our fellow citizen-, feel the I 
of such rights. We cannot help deeply feeling them; for 
we are obliged to send our children abroad, at a ex- 
pense, in order to avoid their becoming parti/an< in the pi 
sent warfare against OUT own sentiments. We do not CDtn- 

plain that our sentiments are opposed ; but we oomplain 

that they are opposed in this way. and at the sacrifice of 
right- thai we hold dear and deem -acred. We do not com- 
plain that Unitarians build up Seminaries lor themselves, in 

order to educate young men to spread abroad and defend 
their own sentiment- : they have an entire right to build up 
schools, colleges, or theological Seminaries of this kind, and 
to coniine their privileges to their own body. The Bill of 

Rights assures them of this privilege, But tl aid re- 

member, that it assures us of the same. What we complain 

of is, that an Institution which belongs in common to the 
whole State, which was founded and endowed to a large ex- 
tent by Orthodox men, and consecrated to maintaining th 
faith, should now be made exclusively a party Seminary, so 
that from the President down to the janitor, no man of known 
Orthodox sentiment-, can find access there as an ins^'uetor. 
"We complain that rights public and common, should be 
ied by on-- exclusive party, and appropriated to their own 
purposes \ that teachees, maintained at the expense of the 
Commonwealth, should be devoted to a seminary exclusively 

Unitarian, and paid from a fund in which the Orthodox have 

a common interest of all this we complain; but never 

.-hall or can complain, that I nitarians manage their oicn 

Seminaries entirely in their own way; provided always, that 

they concede to u- the same liberty. 

Look now lor a moment on this whole ca-e, and put your- 



BE] - i n-i B n . 

ild you help feel- 
ing, that you bad to dial with those*, who being in possession 
of power forget riulit r And y* . Sir, you are not only look* 
ing on, but beartily approving of all this, and have yourself 
a an efficient agent in bringing it about. How can ii 

that thtiv ifl only one !i a <jiu-tion ? 

If ly reproached, because ire Bepfcrmta in our 

relig >mmunion and worship from Unitarians* Some 

pour strongest expressions of disapprobation and indigna- 

Hired out against us lor this. And \vt, when I 
this matter to the bottom, I am unable to see the 
justice of this reproof. We do sincerely believe, that cer- 
tain sentiments are essentuU to the Christian religion. We 
regard them as being so essential, that true Christianity can- 
not exist without them. Whether we are in the right or the 
Wrong m to this, it is not my present purpose to inquire. 
Enough that we sincerely believe ourselves to be in the right. 
If so, then how can others deny us the liberty of thinking 
and acting in a manner that accords with this ? If we should 
not do so, it would be proof that we were neither sincere nor 
in earnest, in our religious sentiments ; in other words, that 
we were hypocrites. You may believe this of us ; and judg- 
ing by the general tenor of your writings, I know not how to 
avoid the conclusion that you do think so. 13 ut we still aver, 
that you have no right to affirm this ; and we must maintain 
this position, so long as our consciences acquit us in respect 
to the matter of this accusation. 

In separating from those who differ from us in religious 
opinion, (as w T e believe, fundamentally), we are not led on 
by motives of bigotry or of an exclusive spirit. We are 
prone to ask a question which is not recent : * ; How can two 
walk together, unless they are agreed ?" We do not urge 
these words beyond what we think to be their plain and ob- 
vious import We do not think that small differences of 
opinion about non-essentials, are intended to be included in 
them. We limit the meaning to agreement in things, which 
in our view are essential Such we do honestly believe to 



&SUGIOU8 LIBERTY. 

be the difference between Unitarians and ourselves. And 
Mich, not a few of the Unitarians themselves have avowed it 
to be. Mr. Belsham declares that " we do not worship the 
same Go4»" and Borne of your writers and speakers decla 

that the God whom we worship is a devil. How can you 
complain, then, that we separate from you ? Surely you do 

not wish to be united in the bonds of communion with such 
worshippers. If you have any conscience on this subj< 
it must remonstrate against it 

But who among the Orthodox ever complains that Unita- 
rians separate from them? I trust none. An inconsistency 
with the principles that we profess, would lie on the very 
face of such a complaint. 

We do not proscribe men from whom we separate in our 
Worship, either in a civil or social respect We vote for 
them as our magistrates and legislators. We help to elevate 
them to the highest offices in the State ; we do so, because 
there are among our religious opponents men whose civil and 
social worth we acknowledge, and pay it the cheerful tribute 
of our regard. AVe do it also, because the State in which 
we live is so divided in matters of religious opinion, that we 
fully believe a religious test for civil honour and olhce would 
be altogether inexpedient AVe rejoice sincerely in the 
welfare of those whose religious opinions differ from ours, and 
cheerfully contribute to do them civil honour. All this can- 
not be denied of us with truth. And when we separate from 
them in our worship, it is with pain, with deep regret, with 
ardent wishes that they might cherish the like religious senti- 
ments with cairselves; but with a consciousness too, that our 
duty to the principles which we profess, obliges us to follow 
the Course that we pursue. 

Such are our views, feelings, and motives, in regard to 
the painful subjects of dispute now agitated in this commu- 
nity. Such I am sure are my own ; and such, I have satis- 
factory evidence are the views of my beloved brethren with 
whom I have the pleasure to be associated in action and in 

belief. 



rOIOl - LIB! H Wk 

1 have tin; iew, in regard to our opinions 

,it religious liberty and the rights of conscience. In dif- 
fering from many around us, and in separating from their 
ligio imunion, we well know, we dd fully recognize the 

fact, that wo are responsible to th Head of the Church, 

But fblly believe, that we are responsible onlt to AmH, 

AY. leny others the right of remonstrating, 

and of endeavouring to show as that our course is wrong ; but 

it is al<o true, that wo do not believe they have any right to 
d that we should abandon it ; nor do wo think that to 
call OS bigots, and hypocrites, and plotters against the re- 
ligious liberties of the State, is the most Christian way of re- 
claiming 

And now in view of these principles and of these facts in 
reference to Orthodox Christians, I would ask : Where is the 
ground of the accusations which are made against them as 
conspiring against the dearest liberties of the Commonwealth? 
I have often been struck, my dear Sir, in reading your writ- 
ings as well as those of others, with the manner in which you 
prefer charges of the most heinous nature against us. On 
your own side, all that your party have done is liberal, and 
just, and noble, and worthy of the exalted age in which the 
•• march of mind" has become so conspicuous, and which is 
carrying us on with a rapid stride far away from the Cimme- 
rian regions of Calvin and Luther ; nay, the boldest assertions, 
the most perilous propositions, if not evidence of a well di- 
rected and skilful aim at the enemy, seem to be evidence in 
your view of great valour and of high devotedness to the 
cause of the New Information. On the other hand, all efforts 
of the like nature among us, in defence of our own sentiments, 
or in the way of assailing what we think to be errors — all these 
from beginning to end, appear to be reputed as mere evi- 
dences of narrow mindedness, of gloomy bigotry, of furious 
zeal, of a persecuting spirit, and of dark designs to renew the 
manacles and the dungeons to which the disciples of Ignatius 
Loyola have so long made their appeal. 

Sir, I do not understand this. 13y whom has the great 
28* 



RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 

question been prejudged and settled, whether all thai ifi ju-t 
an<l ii!. plainly <>n the ride of Unitarianism, that it d< 

not 90 much as admit of a single doubt, or rather, that it \i 

be assumed as a matter of course? Or is this assumption 
i d founded on cue of the great a priori principles of our 

moral nature, which it needs no reasoning to settle, and which 
DO arguments can make plainer or stronger than it is from the 
very first moment that it i> presented to the mind? So one 

who rea Is your writing-, would be strongly tempted to sup- 
pose you deem it to be. What you say and write on sub- 
jects connected with religious dispute, bears this impress on 

its very lace. If not, then 1 can solve the appearances in 

your writings, only by a supposition more disagreeable still, 
and to which I shall never resort without being absolutely 
driven to do it ; I mean the supposition, that you have, by 
the flattery of your friends, and in consequence of dictating 
to your party so long, at last come to the position of mind, 
that avtog t-'(fi t is enough; that you expect as a matter of 
course, that all which you utter will be readily assented to, 
and that none but bigots will venture to call it in question. I 
will not, however, believe this either of you or your friends, 
without better evidence tlran any that yet lies before the pub- 
lie. I could easily believe that some of the journal and news- 
paper writers, who employ so many paragraphs in fulsome 
and bloated eulogies of your works, might belong to the cl 
supposed above. But as I have no apprehension that you 
have any concert with them, or even thank them for the 
lacker which they strive to put on you, I have not a word 
more to Bay concerning them. What there is in your writi: 

that deserves praise, (and this is much, and some of it of a 

very high order too), they seem to me to be so unfortunate 
not to see; and what is of a different or doubtful character. 
they are pretty sure to laud in the most extravagant and dis- 
gusting manner. 

Having thus explained the \ iews and feeling- of myself and 

my friends, in relation to the religious liberty which we think 

to be proper, and which we shall ever strenuously adi 



EtiLieioi - Lomnrr. 

and th ared tl, to decide more fatty how little 

ir apprehensions resp< cling our principles and d are 

being justified and defended; I now p ro cee d m 
v to develops, (as 1 intimated near the commencemenl of 
this letter it was my intention to do)j tk and tpirit of 

ms against us. 
In order to present a combined and oendeoaed \ iew of tl 
I mast beg the liberty of repeating here) not the words in all 

but the substance and spirit of the passages which the 

grinning of this letter presents. These, united with other 
«in your writings which I intend to make, will am- 
ble every intelligent reader to judge tor himself, whether the 

complaints which I have brought forward, and which I have 
still to prefer, are not sufficiently well grounded. 

I make no hesitation in repeating the expression of my en- 
tire undoubting conviction, that the Orthodox are the men 
whom you mean to characterize in these and the like pas- 
and all proof of this, to any intelligent reader, I must 
think to be utterly unnecessary. 

In the first extract just named, you intimate that 'the re- 
ligion of the Orthodox has been turned into spiritual tyranny; 
that it has fastened superstitions on the conscience; subdued 
the ignorant and susceptible with spiritual terrors ; spread far 
and wide dark appalling views of God ; struck a dread of in- 
quiry into superior understandings ; and made servility of spir- 
it to pass for piety. The intimidations [of the Orthodox] from 
the pulpit and the press have rendered some too timid to think ; 
made them anxiously to stiiie every doubt or misgiving in re- 
gard to their opinions ; to shrink from the seekers after truth 
from infection; to surrender their best powers toothers; 
and unresistingly to receive a teaching, which war- against 
conscience and reason. [Orthodoxy] makes chains, that eat 
more deeply into the soul than those of iron. This espionage 
of bigotry ctually closes our lips and our hearts, as an 

armed and hundred-eyed police. This opinion is combined 
and organized in sects, and swayed by the clergy. A sect 
skilfully organized ; trained to utter one cry ; combined to 



RELIGIOUS LIl.l.K 

cover with repr o ach whoever may differ from themselves; to 
ilmwii tin* (Sree expression of opinion by denunciations of 
he resy ; and ID strike terror into the multitude by joint and 
perpetual menare — such a seel is as perilous and palsying to 
the intellect a- the Inquisition. It serves the minister a- •■!'- 
factually as the sword. Tbs pre$ m U ag ■'>rl<>nsh. 

ruin, <i ml tic rrfore hostile to liberty.* Elect Serin, pp. 2-3 — 28. 

Of course, then, {he pr e s ent age is one in which such a 
lives, (i. e. in your estimation) : and lives, not in Europe or 
A-ia. where it would very little eoncern us. but here at home, 
in Old Massachusetts, the land of the blessed Pilgrims; and 
this sect is neither more nor less than the Orthodox. It would 
be strange indeed to deny that you meant to affirm this, merely 
became you have not here ealled them by name. I will not 
for a moment suppose you to be capable of such disingenu- 
ou>n< 

In the second extract above named, you suggest that i the 
accusation of a persecuting spirit will be repelled on the part 
of the Orthodox with indignation. But you insist upon it 
that it is true. Fire and sword, you allege, are not the only 
instruments of persecution. The form may be changed, while 
the spirit lives.' M Persecution has indeed given up its halter 
and fagot ; but It breathes venom from Its lips, and secretly 
blasts chat It o emn o t opekkf destroy*" Works, pp. 5G1, 562. 

A terrible Hydra indeed, which has such a poisonous breath ! 
And happy for Massachusetts, that she can furnish "a voice 
of strength" to reach *• far and wide" enough to frighten it 

back to its native fen, whenever it venture- to appear and 

.-end forth its venomous and Masting breath! 

In the third long extract aS mentioned above, t lie //a/itlsi- 
tl'>i< is again brought upon the tapis. * The multitude [of the 
Orthodox] dar</ not think or speak, because [the Inquisition 
in the new form] is more terrible than that of Spain. Ifetl 
are told indeed to searrh thr Scriptures : but they know full 
well, that unless tiny find there the creed of the Orthodox, 
they must undergo the penalty of exclusion. All this is woi 
than Papal bondage. And on the ground of Congregational- 



i:rin;io!> liiukty. 

ion, the churcli little more than tl 

in the busi lusion. So all oomei into the h 

the ; who, in order to complete the whole plan. 

formin. s, and en riCALCOUl 

which ; inijM 1 DMD to l»«Tit >T€ M tin y do. This if 

mo* _ I the mind the 

mis and -.lasting truth of God.' 

Works, pp. 5 

tract present- an apology tor your controver- 
sial This in substance is. that • you saw BSMUdtfl oil 
dom of thought and speech [by the Orthodox], which 
would have left lis only the name of religious liberty. It be- 
came perilous ; a ii the Scripture- for our.->< 1\ es. and to 
ik our own convictions. The often reiterated idea of 
penalti 1 as fine and imprisonment is again introduced, 
[a spectre which seems to have haunted you with more than 
ordinary obtrusivenes- and pertinacity] ; and then to frighten 
this spectre away, your strong voice was raised, and it made 
its retreat/ Works, Pref. pp. vii. viii. 

Here I might rest my case, having made out proof enough 
of the ground of complaint which I have alleged, in respect 
to the treatment that we have received at your hands. But 
that I may not seem to have fastened on a few paragraphs, 
and to have dealt unfairly. I proceed still farther to cite from 
your Works. 

On p. 215, you speak of Robert Fellows' work, as * a use- 
ful vindication of Christianity from the grots errors which 
Calvinism has laboured to identify with this divine system.' 

P. 210. you speak of the "five thorny points of Calvin- 
ism, " and say that "f< are more praiseworthy, than 
to free Christianity from the reproach brought upon it by that 
m." 

On the same page you assert, that •• Calvinism owes its 
perpetuity to the influence of fear in palsying the moral na- 
ture ;" that it terrifies men so * % that they dare not conf- 
even to themselves, the shrinking, which they feel, from the 
unworthy views which this system gives of God ; and by thus 



RELIGIOUS LIBKB l v. 

ing their just abhorrence, they gradually extinguish it, 
fend even come to vindicate in God what would db Ids 

civatun 

Josl before the paragraph now presented, you Bay <rf -Mi*. 

Fellow-' work, that -it expre&a es strongly and without A»- 
eamlocution, (As aMa with irjdrli evert mind, nm-nr- 

nijtttff byf&he theology, must look on Calvinism." 

Yet those who abandon Calvinism, with all these awful 
and horrible absurdities, and prefer to adopt the 

Stem in a somewhat modified or milder form, you represent, 
a few pages onward (p. 320), as <-<>n'<ir<ls and a\ tie* At 

least you say, that M if the stern reformer of Geneva could 
lift up his head" and hear their mitigated tone, he would call 
them so, and he would tell them that u moderate Calvinism is 
a solecism, a contradiction in terms;" by all which I under- 
stand you plainly to mean, that such as profess to be mode- 
rate Calvinists, are justly liable to the imputation of coic- 
mrdiee. 

On p. 221, after speaking of the Westminster Assembly's 
Catechism and Confession, you say : " A man of plain sense, 
whose spirit has not been broken to this creed by education 
or terror, will think that it is not necessary for us to travel to 
heathen countries, to learn how mournfully the human mind 
may misrepresent the Deity." In other words, the religious 
creeds of the heathen can afford no more striking misrepre- 
sentation- of the Deity, than the Assembly's Catechism and 
Confession. 

On p. 402, you represent Trinitarians as ' having no right 
to object to the picture and symbol worship of the Roman 
Catholics. If Christ is God, and has a body, that body may 

well be pictured as any other one ; and there can be no 
rational objection to making use of this picture in our wor- 
ship.' 

On p. 405, you aver that " Trinitarianism is a riddle f 
that "instead of teaching an intelligible God, it offers to the 
mind a Strange compound of hostile attributes, bearing ph 

wis of those ayes of darkness, when Christianity sited but 



&ELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 

On p. ,v: u We look irith horror and grief on 

the \rnmi«'iit, which :nv naturally and inti- 

inai« \\ suited with Trinitarianism. They take from as uur 
Father id hea?en, and substitute a stem and unjust lord." 

On p. 415, you admit that there ate WBM great minds 

among the adherent! of the prevalent system [of < Orthodoxy] ; 

" bin." jrou add, " they Seem to move in chains, and to fulfil 
ply their high functions of adding to the wealth of the hu- 
man intellect ; and you then liken them to Sam.-on grinding 
in the mill uf the Philistine 

On p. 123 you say, that if you believed what Trinitarians 
teach in regard to sin, you should "feel yourself living under 
a legislation unspeakably dreadful, under laws written, like 
Draco's, in blood ; and instead of thanking the sovereign for 
providing an infinite substitute, you should shudder at the at- 
tributes which render this expedient necessary." 

On p. 428 you say: "According to these principles [viz. 
those of Trinitarianism], the fanatic who exclaimed: I be- 
lieve be 'He, has a fair title to canonization." 
" Trinitarianism links itself with several degrading errors ; 
and its most natural reliance is with Calvinism, that cruel 
faith, which, stripping God of mercy and man of power, has 
made Christianity an instrument of torture to the timid, and 
an object of doubt or scorn to hardier spirits. I repeat it, a 
doctrine, which violates reason like the Trinity," etc. 

On p. o ">7 you say : " Nothing is plainer, than that the 
leaders of the party called \ Orthodox/ have adopted and 
force a system of exclusion, in regard to Liberal 
Christians." 

On p. b^S, the Orthodox are represented as having fallen 
into some of -'the grosses! errors." 

On p. 561, the Orthodox are represented as menacing with 
ruin the Christian who listens to Unitarians, and as branding 
him with the most terrifying epithets, in order to prevent a 
candid inquiry into the truth. 



336 RELIGI01 - 

On p. ■ t, that M it is a melancholy fart, thai 

our long established form of Congregational church govern*- 
incut is menaced, and tribunals unknown to our churches, — 
to be introduced for the very />"rj>osr, tf,<tt 

ore and mistakes of ministers and ]>ric<tt<> Christians "<"y 
ved and punished as i i, a- i k i m i:s/' 

But where .-hall I end in making extracts of such a nature, 
when all of these have been taken from three short pieces in 
your book; and in these I have omitted aa much as I have 
extracted that i- of the like nature f I conclude the whole 

task of extracting, by presenting one specimen more of the 

manner in which you treat that doctrine, which of all that is 
pemikar to the gospel the Orthodox deem the most dear and 
red ; I mean the doctrine of atom ment by the suffering 
and death of Christ upon the CT08& It is thus that you speak 
of this part of our faith : 

u This doctrine of an infinite substitute, Buffering the penalty 
Of sin, to manifest God's wrath against sin, and thus to support 
his government, is, 1 fear, so familial to us all, that its severe 
character is overlooked. Let me then set it before you, in new 
terms, and by a new illustration ; and if in so doing, J may 
wound the feelings of some who hear me, I beg them to believe, 
that J do it with pain, and from no impulse but a desire to serve 
the cause of truth. — Suppose, then, that a teacher should come 

among you, and should tell yon, that ihe Creator, in order to 

pardon his own Children, had erected a gallows in the centre of 
the universe, and had publicly executed upon it, in room of the 

offenders, an infinite being, the partaker of his own Supreme 

Divinity; suppose him to declare, that this execution was ap- 
pointed, as a most conspicuous and terrible manifestation of 
God's justice, and of the infinite wo denounced by his law; and 

suppose him to add, that all beinirs in hea\en and earth are re- 
quired to fix their eyes on this fearful sight, as the most pow < i - 
fill enforcement of obedience and virtue. Would you not tell 

him, thai he calumniated his ."Maker r Would you not sa\ to 
him, that this central gallows threw gloom over the univers 
that the spirit of a government, whose very acts of pardon were 
written in such blood, was terror not paternal love ; and that 

the obedience, w hich licedrd to be upheld by till.- hoirihle Bp 

. was nothing worth ? Would yda not say to him, that even 



Rl LIOIOT 9 LIBBB IV. ".'57 

in this infancy and imperfection of your being, were capa- 
ble of being wrought upon b) nobler motives, and of battttg 
>in through more generous views; and that much more the an- 

. those pure tlniin's oflow, need not the gallows and ao i 
ecuted God, to confirm their loyaltj - JTou would all bo feel at 
such teaching ns 1 have supposed; and yel how does this differ 
tVoiu the popular doctrine of atonement?" — pp. 123; 124. 

On this last extract [deemall comment superfluous. II 
holy apostle who asserts that Christ ha$ redeemed tie church 
by ki$ blood ; who waa u determined not to preach any thing 

else save Jesus Christ and him CRUCIFIED f* who " glorr 

in imtJtimj sat-r in the cross ef Christ ;" and the redeemed 
in heaven who ascribe talvatiotl to his blood, are the proper 
arbiters to decide on such an awful paragraph. 

And now, my dear Sir, I come to the main object of this 
letter. I have endeavoured to prepare the way, and come at 
last to the principal thing in view; with great reluctance, in- 
deed, but still with deep conviction that duty bids me do it. 
I have complained that you have uttered frequent and severe 
accusations against us, who belong to the denomination of the 
Orthodox. I have shown the ground of my complaint. 
Permit me then to add to what I have said, by making what 
I deem a reasonable and proper and Christian request of you. 

You have given your name to the world as the author of 
accusations, that ice are aiming to subvert and destroy the 
religious liberty of this Commonwealth ; that ice are combined 
to put down all free inquiry in matters of religion ; that we 
are endeavouring, in secret and openly, to introduce an eccle- 
siastical tyranny worse than that of the Inquisition ; that we 
are determined to raise up ecclesiastical Courts to try, con- 
demn, and punish all whom ice deem to be heretics ; and thus 
to prevent all right of private judgment, and all freedom in 
respect to religious opinion. 

I have openly avowed in this letter my own opinion, and 
what I know to be the opinion of the Christian brethren with 
whom I have the honour to be associated, in relation to these 
subjects. I know that what I have said is incapable of being 

29 



338 RELIGIOUS LIBE&TT* 

contradicted on any grounds of evidence. / dc huno that 

th*' arct/s'ttt'o/tS wltirlt ijoh st'tiul pfadffed tO $UpWOt% A.RE 

No! TRUBi Before heaven and eartfrl aver thai II Li: V 

ARK NOT TRUE. That they are accusations of a hurt- 
ful tendency, need not be said. They go to destroy all iv- 
Ipeol tor 08, all coutidence in us, all prospects of our useful- 

ncss in society or in the church, just so far as you are be- 
lieved; and to render B3 the objects of suspicion, of scorn, 
and of hatred. As injured men, Bfl injured in a manner that 
is highly unjust and cruel, we call on you either for repara- 
tion, or else to support your charges. These charges are 
allegations as to matters of FACT, They are not matters of 
opinion merely, or the deductions which may be drawn from 
opinions. As matters of fact, you are hound to Support them. 
According to all demands of propriety and justice, you have 
no liberty now to retreat, by professing disdain of your oppo- 
nents ; none to screen yourself under the allegation, (as you 
have attempted in the preface to your Works to do), that 
you dislike controversy. On every ground of equity, you 
must either support the charges which you have made, as to 
facts ; or take them back ; or else stand before the public as 
one who lias abused and maltreated his fellow beings, mem- 
bers of the same Commonwealth, entitled to the same privi- 
leges with himself, and having a right to claims that they 
shall be spoken of with truth and justice ; a right which can- 
not be violated without responsibility for so doing. 

Sir, we have borne these charges in silence long enough — 
so long that not a few of your friends begin to aver, that 
silence gives consent to the truth of them. You have re- 
peated them so often and for such a series of years, without 
being called in question in some important respects for so 
doing, that you seem of late to have considered the right of 
doing it as a matter quite beyond the reach of debate. You 
do not seem to expect, that the objects of your vehement 
and scornful denunciation, will venture to resist or even to 
complain. Like those subdued by the irresistible power of 
the great Assyrian kiiej, 4k not a bird would move the wing, 



R] i | inn H iv. .°>.°>9 

or open the mouth p." Hut it' you have believed this 

us, you have erred, ;u least in one point, with re- 

wb of tin* Orthodox, We have not been 

ng with fear; we have " held our peace for good." 

^ e acknowledge, indeed, that when u we have meditated on 

the lire has burned within us." Hut it* 
w« have been trespassers in this respect, kindly put it to the 

of human infirmity. After nil. however, there 

times when it becomes a duty to call on those who assail us 
with hitter reproaches, who endeavour to hold us up to the 

rn and ridicule of the world, who accuse us of crimes 
which i conscienHue would be properly adjudged to be 

frigl n against the religion* liberties of this Common' 

akk, so long as we profess to be citizens of it, and have 
sworn to maintain its constitution and its rights. There are 
boundaries beyond which it is not the duty of the peaceable 
and the inoffensive to no, in tolerating abuse of this nature 
without demanding a reparation. AVe have come to those 
bounds. We allege before the world that we have been 
slandered and abused by your writings; we appeal to the 
particulars ; we offer the evidence ; and we now appeal to 
every honest and candid man of any party, to judge whether 
we have not supported our charge, that you have made and 
often repeated such accusations against us. 

If now you can establish the facts which you have alleged, 
and which go to make up the charges in question, in respect 
to the Orthodox as a body in this Commonwealth, confession 
and humiliation in this whole affair undoubtedly will belong 
to us. If you cannot prove it of the whole, then the sweep- 
ing accusations which you have made are to be modified, 
greatly modified. If you can prove it only of a kw solitary- 
individuals, called by the name of Orthodox, but who in fact 
are extravagant and reckless men, this will be little to your 
purpose, and nothing to ours. We Wash our hands of such 
orthodoxy. Our orthodoxy bids us to be peaceable mem- 
bers of the State, true friends of our government, advocates 
of religious liberty even at the peril of life and property, and 



310 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 

of this too in its highest and most extensive rational sen 
AW are Cbngt gyaf iswuftstt, n we p tofe es to be. We have no 

prejudices, indeed, against the Presbyterian or other forms 
of church gove rnment, which our brethren of orthodox de- 
nominations in this Commonwealth, or in any part of our 
country, see lit to adopt It is our belief that the gospel ha- 

not pres c ri bed ej-c/usirc/g any particular form of church gov- 
ernment ; but that this is left to expediency as times and 
circumstances may require. Nor are those who may ditler 
from ourselves in respect to the regimen of the churches, 
therefore to be involved any more than we, in the char- 
which you have preferred against the Orthodox. They have 
no such objects in view, as you charge upon us all ; and they 
would not only disclaim them, but contend most strenuously 
against them. 

J >ut in respect to such of us as profess to be Congrega- 
tionalists, neither yourself nor any man on earth has a right 
to deny that we are sincere in this profession. How then 
can we have it in view to erect ecclesiastical judicatories and 
courts which are to try and jn'/tish heretics as crinu'neds? 
Why. Sir, the suggestion of such a thing among Congrega- 
tional ists, is just as if one were to ask, under the present 
form of our government in this State : i What day is appoint- 
ed for the coronation of the Governor?' And the fact that 
you even suggest such a thing, shows, either that you regard 
us as hypocrites in professing to be Congregationalists ; or — 
-hall I Bay it — that you make as.-ertions of this nature, with- 
out even knowing what Congregationalism admits or reje< 

My belief is, that you cannot make your charges good, 
atiainst any man in this State who bears the name of Ortho- 
dox. Still I must be understood as asserting no farther than 
I have evidence before me. h\ regard to that class of the 
Orthodox at which you have aimed your accusations, Ifear- 
t that you cannot jiossihh/ make them good. And 

in this class, I would comprehend fayt a tn as well as tdmg^ 

;/. I have the pleasure of a personal acquaintance sonie- 
what extensive, among the men who are active in promoting 



RELIGIONS UT.EKTY. o41 

the interest of orthodoxy in Mi-ad <^ r that 

i have a I them in your charges, and that von are 

utterly unable to support ikfcM char-- 

i will a<k me, perhaps, why I A a «M select the 

Call and ©f this complaint. H y an^w.-r i^ ready. 

been ingenuaiM enough to gira yotf mmm to the 

world, m a pledge that you will MppoH the charts which 
I commend you most sincerely for this. It 

is a pledge, that you do not mean to act in the dark, and that 
you are not afraid to take on you the responsibility of what 
you atlirin. I regard it also a- a satisfactory testimonial, that 
you 1x1 the truth of what you have alleged. I would 

not for a moment have it understood, that in denying the 
charges which you have brought, I mean to implicate you in 
the charge of uttering intentional falsehood. Sir, I know of 
nothing in your life or writings, much at I dissent from many 
tilings which you have said, that would justify me in making 
h an assertion. I should deem it inexcusable in myself, 
not to explain what. I say in such a manner, that I shall not 
be understood by any one as making an allegation of this 
nature against you ; nor will I allow the objection to be made 
to me, that I have assailed you with such a complaint. But 
this does not make our ease any- better, but rather the worse. 
The openness and sincerity with which you proclaim your 
opinions, are the very means of making them current, with 
such a part of the public as have no personal acquaintance 
with our views and feelings and motives. If it were known, 
or even suspected, that you made such charges as a mere 
party fetch, the mischief of them would at once be prevented. 
But now, you do the thing with so much openness, and zeal, 
and sincerity; and withal hold such a rank in the opinion of 
the public as to uprightness, and veracity, and candour; that 
the allegations which you make that are erroneous, become 
dangerous and injurious ones. The fact that you are sincere 
in making them, then, is no reason why we who are exposed 
to injury by them, should not insist that they must be either 
made good or retracted. It furnishes the weightier reason 

29* 



9 II LIGIOUS LIBERTY. 

why we should do so. And the fact that you have given 

r name to the world, 18 a public pledge that ) nd 

ready to s up p ort them. You cannot complain then that we 
make the call on you to do this. 

Am to the cmonymoui accusations which are a thousand 
times repeated, from the more stately Review down to the 
insignificant newspaper and two-penny pamphlet, we have 
more important concerns in which we ought to be engaged 
than in answering them. At all events. I shall never trouble 
them with any calls of this nature. 

One other reason I would assign, why I have made the 
call on you to support the accusations which you have made 

linst us. Jt is this, viz. that it' we are to give credence to 
the testimony of your friends, you are the head or leader of 
the Unitarian pally in this State. So the partial friend, who 
has recently made your defence against the criticisms of the 
Edinburgh Review, has stated to the world. li Dr. Chan- 
ging, as our readers are generally aware, is the acknowledged 
leader qf the Unitarian sect, as far as there can be Leaders, 
etc." North Amer. Review, July 1830. p. 4G. Taking 
this statement (which has often before been virtually made) 
to be correct, and knowing that what you say and publish is 
reechoed, and republished, and applauded, so often and to 
each a wide extent, we have a right to request, nay to de- 
mand from you the reason, why you endeavour so extensive- 
ly to injure us and to bring us into suspicion, or into con- 
tempt and hatred. 

AVhat sort of impression you make on your admirers, is 
Sufficiently evident from another passage on the same page of 
the X. Amer. Review which I have quoted. The writer 
there Bays: " Dr. Channing has no doubt uniformly ohserccd 
the decorum^ which belongs to his character and feelings, as 
well as to his position, and lots fronted, his opponents with 
rim i:er liukiiality." p. 16. Who the writer of this Re- 
view is, I know not. lie is evidently a man of talents and 
knowledge, and no more prejudiced, 1 presume, against the 
( hthodox, that many others, who, like himself, know nothing 



RELIGIOI - 1 IBKRTY. 

ut I hem. II- - with implicit belief what you say 

mpecting them. He evea commends you for "perfect Ub- 

towards them. As a matter of common justioe to 

his fellow citizens, we have a right now to solicit, thai ha 

ihl peruse the evidence collected in this latter of your 

"perfect liberality and decorum ;" then to put himself lor a 

moment in our condition, and ask; Whether this is the mca- 

: -11111 and liberality" which he would like to have 

ards himself? The complaints which he mai 

of the British Reviews, and makes with great justice and 

for. u to not a few things, have respect to mere trifles 

ipared with those things of which we feel compelled to 

make complaint against you. 

In the general tenor of his remarks, by way of vindicating 
your work- against the criticisms of the Edinburgh Reviewer, 
I concur. The flippant impudence, (if I may venture to 
ak what I feel), the superficial criticism, the illiberal spirit, 
and the palpable mistakes in literary taste and judgment, 
which the Scotch Reviewer seems to me to betray, hardly 
render his work worth the notice bestowed upon it in our own 
at present more able and respectable Review. I have no 
sympathies with such foreign criticism ; no blindness, I trust, 
to the merits and excellencies of your writings in many im- 
portant respects. I could almost say : " Ubi bene, nemo 
melius/' Indeed, I do fully and heartily say this, of a great 
many passages in them. I have as much satisfaction in the 
claims of America to notice, in consequence of your writings, 
as the Reviewer himself. But then, I have complaints to 
make which he has either wholly overlooked, or which he is 
not disposed to acknowledge as well founded. lie will par- 
don me for thus criticising on his criticism, and believe me 
when I gay of the Xorth American as a whole : Non invideo, 
miror magis. I could even add, on account of some of the 
pieces in this work : I nostrum decus I 

But to return ; the mischief of which we complain, in con- 
sequence of lending your name to sanction accusations against 
us, does not stop within the narrow circle of Massachusetts. 



'II RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 

For example: the editor of the American QumitrUf and 

'in, ml ( , has every now and then retailed, secretly 

or openly, aeengatfefifl againsl "the bigots" of the North, 
which arc copied from you, or echoed in the spirit fostered 
by reading your works. It comes, however, not with a very 

1 gram from him. If he is a true son of the Romish 
Church to which lie profesm to belong, it is indeed " passing 
m range" that he -hould rail at the bigotry of us Protestants 
and l'uritans. A man who professes to believe in the infalli- 
bility of the Pope, in the real presence of Christ's body and 
blood in the sacrament, in purgatory, in the plena indulgentia 
Which is to be purchased for a few pence and which stands 
advertised on every conspicuous street-corner of the eternal 
rihj ; who of com ■se, if he ig sincere in all this, must, on the 
same authority, believe equally in the relics of the cross, in the 
transportation by angels of the chapel of my Lady of Loretto, 
and in the miraculous liquefaction of the blood of St. Janua- 
rius, with a multitude of other things of the like nature ; and 
who, as a true son of the same church, must bow with cheer- 
ful acquiescence in the Bull of the late Pius at Rome, the 
u Vicar of God and successor of St. Peter," dated Aug. 7, 
1814, which, after the Jesuits had been suppressed for forty 
years by another infallible Pontiff, not only restores them to 
all their rights and privileges, but declares, that H if any one 
.-hall infringe, or by an audacious temerity oppose any part of 
this ordinance [the Bull in question], let him know that he 
will thereby incur the in i>h; nation of ALMIGHTY ( JOD, 
and of die HOLY APOSTLES PETER AND PAIL" 
— I Bay a man who sincerely believes all this, is not altogeth- 
er the right man to rail at the bigotry of orthodox Congrega- 
tfonalists in Massachusetts. And if he be not sincere in his 
profession of being a genuine and dutiful son of his mother 
Church, but professes to be what he is not, then his sneers or 
his scolls are matters which we can make up our minds to 
endure with very comfortable equanimity** 

1 This gentleman has, for some time past, had his location in Paris ; 
where he seems to leave the Puritans in peace, and finds little occasion, 



RELir.IOT'3 LIBERTY. 

my dear Sir, can jrou b me, when I de- 

clare, that in all which I have said above, I hare n<> pmMMri 

aim at It is true that I have called on you personally ; 

mid I possibly avoid this, when my whole letter If 

concerned with allegations that you have made? But as to 

1 1 i 1 1 lt a spirit of hostility or bitterness against you as a man, 
I disclaim openly any such intention ; it would he unworthy 

which I profess to adv- it would be unbe- 

ling my place, or the character which I would wish to bear. 

fa there do separation that can be made by the public, be- 

•n calling in question allegations and charges, and per- 
ial malignity towards those; who make them ? I trust there 
is ; at least, In my own case, I certainly hope there is. lam 
not behind some of your more sober and judicious friends, in 
my approbation and admiration of many things in your writ- 
ings. In all your and my personal intercourse, on the occa- 
sion of a discussion some years since, I had no personal rea- 
sons to complain of you. I would hope that you can say the 
same of me. I am sure that I bear you no ill will ; I am 
certain too, that I am very far from cherishing disrespect for 
your talents. I say this fully and freely, because I am anx- 
ious to be rightly understood. My complaint is, of the injury 
which your charges are adapted to do us ; of what I believe 
to be utterly unfounded allegations against our character and 
designs ; of being held up by you to the public, as conspira- 
tors against its sacred liberties. Justice, truth, a proper re- 
gard to our good name and usefulness, all demand that the 
charges against us should be examined, and that they should 
either be substantiated or retracted. 

I could wish the call on you to do this had fallen into better 
hands than mine. But as the unpleasant task has not to my 
knowledge been undertaken, I have ventured upon it through 
a sense of duty. I can only appeal to the good sense, and 

I trust, tu scoff at the multitude of sermon- which the Clergy there write 
and deliver. I owe him no ill will ; hut there are some things in his 
publications, during the time that has now gone by, which, perhaps, 
1 dying he would wish to blot.' 



346 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 

equity, and candour of the community, for a justification of my 
Murge. If these condemn me, then let me stand condemned. 
If not, then I shall at lea<t have the satisfaction of believing 
that what I have done may contribute to bring more into the 
light certain matters, which it has now become high time our 
community should more fully understand. 

Allow me in closing this communication, (already pro- 
tracted far beyond my original intention), to say a few things 
in reference to the great contest which is going on bet** 
Unitarianism and Orthodoxy in this part of our country. 
Your place as the leader of the Unitarian party, (you will par- 
don me for saying this which I copy from your Friends), ren- 
ders it of some importance, that you should be possessed of 
just and definite views in regard to some great points of deep 
conviction and feeling among us. AVe have no secrets to keep 
in relation to these matters ; and therefore I will frankly state 
them. 

First of all we do sincerely believe in the great Protestant 
maxim, that THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE SUF- 
FICIENT AND ONLY RULE OF FAITH AND 
PRACTICE. AVe do not regard them as secondary and 
inferior, or a mere supplementary edition of the law r s of nature. 
What they reveal, we take as our creed, onr only creed. AVe 
do not reject the use of symbols of faith and catechisms ; but 
we assign no authority or validity to them any farther than as 
we believe them to be a true representation of God's word. 
In heart and soul we agree with the great doctrines of the Re- 
formers, of Calvin and Luther. AVe do so because we believe 
them to be contained in the Bible, not because we rely at all 
on any authority of these great men. But we do not hold 
ourselves hound to defend the same doctrines which they em- 
braced, by the same specific reasons in all cases which they 
employed in defending them. We have no scruple in reject- 
in- some of their reasons, and of employing better ones when 
we ean iind them. Neither do we feel bound to their tech- 
nology or diction in all cases. Much of this depended on the 
logic of the day, on the metaphysics of the schools, and on the 



RELIGIOl - LIBERTY. 8 17 

sen them and the Roman- 

The k< v to many a proposition in their writings, is to be 
found only by knowing against what error* these propositi 

i tmth almost entirely overlooked by the 

grater part of their opponent- at the present time; but Q 
which is so obvious, that the overlooking it is well nigh in- 
disable. Many an assertion in their writings, which is now 
brought forward as unjust and u monstrous and horrible*" 

melt- down into plain and simple truth that every rational 
tan! must own, when examined with the caution that I 
ha\ 1. and which a common share of candour de- 

mand- should be exercised 

We wee ( '<(/<•< /dsfs, if you please to call us so, although we 
do not court the name. Nor do we refuse it, if it seem good 
to our opponents to bestow it. But we do not receive every 
thing which Calvin taught ; nor any thing because he taught it. 
\\e hold ourselves at liberty, and that without being justly 
subjected to the charge of " disingenuousness and cowardice," 
to reject some things which seem to us quite unimportant in 
the system of the Reformers; and to reject their reasons in 
support of other things which we receive, just so often as we 
find them, on examination, turnout to be insufficient. 

AVe say the same things in respect to our Pilgrim Fathers. 
We mean to be their " sons in faith," as we are their sons by 
descent. But this binds us not to all their modes of reason- 
ing, nor to all their views in respect to matters not essential 
to the existence and prosperity of true Christianity. 

Having adopted these principles, not from tradition, not 
from catechisms and creeds, not from "the fear of what is 
worse than the fetters and dungeons of the Inquisition," but 
from what we believe to be calm and dispassionate inquiry 
into the Scriptures, from what we know to be long-continued 
and diligent investigation of them, we have made up our 
minds to stand fast in the liberty wherewith we believe Christ 
has made us free, in maintaining the system of doctrine which 
is denominated Evangelical or Orthodox. This indeed is 
very diverse, in not a few important respects, from what you 



348 EEL1GIOU8 LIBKBTT. 

and some of your friends represent it to be. Some years 

e, my n I friend and colleague, the Re*. Dr. Wood-. 

brought forward against you the allegation of misrepresenting 

our doctrines, and called on you to make good the charge, or 

to retract it. Of this call, for reasons best known to yourself, 
you thought proper to take no notice. Yet the call must, on 
all hand-, be admitted to be just and proper. You recently 
tell us in your preface, that your reasons for not answering 
such calls were, that you might not be involved in personal 
controversy ; that you must have "spoken with (/rent freedom? 
and "set down as a grave moral offence, the di>ingcnuou>ness 
so common at the present day, which, under pretence of main- 
taining old opinions, so disguises and discolours them, that 
they can with diiliculty be recognized. " But if such be the 
fact in regard to your opponents, why not prove this to the 
world, by adducing legitimate and satisfactory evidence ? In 
such an age and such a country as ours, where everything 
may be and must be examined, it is presuming pretty largely 
on the public credulity, to suppose that assertions will stand 
for arguments, and high and exasperated denunciation for 
patient labour of investigating and proving in detail. It is 
what neither yourself, nor any other man in America, has 
any right to claim or expect. 

But besides those doctrines of the Orthodox which have 
been misrepresented and misunderstood, their' are others, no 
doubt, which are opposed and denied in the very respects in 
which we believe them to be true. 

I proceed, however, with my remarks of a more general 
nature. In the present state of conviction and feeling among 
the Orthodox, which results from examination and full per- 
suasion, it cannot be rationally expected, that we should ac- 
cede to every contradiction of our principles, or succumb to 
every tempest that assaults us. There is one way, and 
o/dt/, t<> annihilate all the OfihodOQCjf of the State; Ondtku 

to shoir h>j the fair mul utabi 'ish< d laws of interpretation, that 
the J H hie does not WppoH it. All else will fail of its end. 
We do in good faith believe that the Bible is the word of 



1; and thai it is our supreme, authoritative, infallible, and 
only guide. We cannot be 0001 inced, therefore, thai it is our 
duty to relinquish what we regard as its plain and unequivo- 
cal decisions, in order to embrace what we regard as the specu- 
lations of men, and the maxims of faahionable philosophy^ 
AV. Ie the propriety of allowing a priori noti 

and a to take the place of what the saered writers 

ha\ acquainted with any man, wl 

word is law or gospel to ua. We would i no apothegms, 

auae tl jerted with an air of confidence, and in 

\ i 1 1 ir and vehement language, or in eloquent strains. A 

man to enjoy our religious confidence* must give some good 

that he loves, and reverences, and has deeply studied, 
Bible. We Bubmit implicitly to Paul, and Peter, and 

others like them ; but in all other cases, we stop to ask the 
why and the wherefore. 

Sir. you have mistaken the Orthodox Community of Mas- 
sachusetts. They care as little tor bringing in the dark ages 

you do. They are a great deal farther from commending 
the faith of those who are laboring to extend the superstitions 
of Rome in our community than yourself, if the softened 
tones, in which you speak of the advocates of these supersti- 
tions, are to be taken as the index of your feelings. 

Nor are the Orthodox to be diverted from their purpose, 
by language of severe reproach and unmeasured indignation. 
The sons of those, who left country and kindred to brave the 
storms of the ocean in frail barks, to face the gloomy horrors 
of the wintry blasts and storms in a savage land and in a 
boundless forest, and who did all this cheerfully that they 
might hold fast their orthodox faith, and worship God ac- 
cording to it — the sons of such men, holding to the same 
principles, and believing them to be the only foundation of 
their eternal hoped — are not to be diverted from their course 
by obloquy and denunciation, however eloquent and severe. 
With them BELIGION is all. The world and all its con- 
cerns vanish into insignificance, when they come into compari- 
son with the ;; glory that is to be revealed." It cannot be 

30 



350 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 

expected, then, if they are in any measure what theyprofi 

to be, that they should be overawed or daunted by denuncia- 
tion or opposition. No. Sir; these will not accomplish the 

purpose at which they aim. It is not that the Orthodox are 
insensible to what their fellow beings think and say of them. 
Far from this. There is much more sensibility among them 
on this subject than I could wish. I cannot withhold my 
hearty commendation, however, of very many of them, for 
checking these feelings, and putting restraint upon them. But 
still, they know when they are mal-treated. They know when 
their rights are denied under cover of law; when they are 
excluded from the literary and ci\il privileges and otlices of 
the State ; when they are jeered at in private circles, and 
pointed at with the linger of scorn in public. With all this 
they have borne, and borne long; I do not say that they have 
always done this with such patience and meekness as became 
them. I am afraid that this is not the case. But depend on 
it. Sir, there is a secret flame kindled in this Commonwealth, 
by such measures as I have named above on your part and 
that of your friends, which, though smothered long, cannot 
always be smothered. Justice, and fairness, and equality of 
rights, must at last become the order of the day. Well will 
it be for the peace of this community, if the season when this 
-hall take place should not be long protracted. There is 
always danger in a smothered sense of injustice and oppn 
sion ; above all, when this is the fact with respect to gr< 
numbers, who belong to the leading class of men in the com- 
munity ; danger to those who feel it, as well as toothers. 
May Heaven avert its consequences from our beloved Com- 
monwealth ! 

I -hall be entirely misunderstood, if I am supposed to utter 
these things in frrr<>r> m. I know well that our opponents 
arc not men to be influenced in this way. It is the last 
method that I should adopt, in order to influence them. I 
the8e things merely as one who loves his country and his 
Commonwealth, and the happy form of government under 
which he lives, and who fears the consequences of anything 



religious limstt. 351 

which may have a tendency to distort onr Bui the 

time has come, when the whole troth should be openly told. 

end on it. Sir, there is a smothered Bense of < 1 « - « - 1 » injury 

the Orthodox, both of civil and religions injury, which 

ta to l»" allayed by a return to the principles of justi< 

equal rights, and kind discussion, on the part of th< 

who are striving to crush them. We look to Switzerland ; 

the wandering exile pastors there thrust out from their 
ntry, or languishing in dungeons, and their families 1" 
i their bread, because these dauntless herald- of salvation 
have dared to preach Christ and him crucified. We cannot 
help knowing that (Jnitarianism has done this; and conse- 
quently we are slow to receive professions of liberality, as 
certain evidence of its existence. W$fear that there are not 
wanting in our own State, some who would not scruple to 
walk in the steps of their liberal brethren abroad ; some 
whose standing argument against our principles is, that Calvin 
burned Servetus ; but who unluckily have never read the 
ecclesiastical history of Geneva in the nineteenth century. 
Far, very far, are we from reproaching the Unitarians as a 
body, in our State, with such views and wishes. On the 
contrary, we do verily believe that a few of the more intole- 
rant among them, are altogether deceived as to the feelings 
of their brethren. We do not believe that the majority are 
prepared for those ultra measures, to which they are occa- 
sionally urged. They would abhor the idea of oppressing 
and abusing us, would they but candidly and patiently ex- 
amine the whole matter. We must still hope that they will 
do this, before they proceed to further measures; and that af- 
ter all, the present appearances in our State, which are por- 
tentous of storm and tempest, will be dissipated, and unclouded 
sunshine follow. At least we hope this. And that this great 
end may be accomplished, we would earnestly beseech all 
who love the peace and prosperity of society and the church, 
to direct their fervent unceasing supplications to Him, who 
" maketh the winds and the waves to obey his voice," who is 



858 KI.Lir.I0U3 LIBERTY. 

u King of kings and Lord of lords" who is "seated at the right 
band of the Majesty on high," and is GOD OVEB ALL 
AND BLESSED FOREVER 

I am, my dear Sir, notwithstanding any difference of senti- 
ment and feeling, with much respect, and with the most sin- 
cere wishes lor your happiness In time and eternity, 
Your friend and obedient servant, 

MOSES STUART, 
An July, 18J 



POSTSCRIPT. 

Tm: sixteen yean which have passed away, since the preceding 
Letter was published, have made some alteration in the state of 
things among us, although they have not brought about any ra- 
dical and thorough change. It is my apprehension, so far as I 
have a knowledge of religious matters in general in this Com- 
monwealth, that the tone and demeanor of Unitarian ism toward 
Orthodoxy has, for some time past, considerably softened, and 
become more urbane. The separation which took place as to 
ministerial exchanges and intercom man ion of religious services 

in 1810 — 1816, after being for a long time strenuously resisted, 

and frequently indeed even loaded with indignant obloquy, has, 
since that period, been generally acquiesced in with compara- 
tive quiet, and has come at last to be almost universally consid- 
ered as a matter Of course. It is only now and then that a soli- 
tary voice is raised, at present, in the way of declamation against it. 
Indeed, in looking back upon this whole scene, in which 1 
have to some small extent been an actor, I can scarcely realize 
now, in what way resistance to such a measure should have he- 
come so warm and impassioned as it once was. When such 
men as Dr. Chan n in g published to the world, that the faith of 
Calvinists was a compound of absurdity, superstition, and blas- 
phemy : when the God whom the Orthodox worship was repre- 
sented as a devil in his purposes and measuro: when the cross 
(if ChHM was Bel forth as a galloWfi for a criminal, erected and 

exposed to the view of an astounded universe; when the wor- 



PO8T80EU 

ship of the Son and Holy Qhosl was reproached m idotatrj and 
enthusiasm ; when, in a word, all the peculiar dodrine$o) 

named by the Orthodoi . w< re londlj pronounced to be fl- 
sionnn mul unreasonable an<l incredible and rerotting; why 

ild those who published and preached and talked all tl 
find bull with the Orthodox tor withdrawing ftUowMp .' Inde- 
pendently of all sacred regard to scriptural doctrine which tl 
at least profess to cherish, I should aaj thai they must be more 
or less than men, willinglj to keep themselves very long within 
close |»io\imit\ to such scorching flames as these. Why did 
not the common sense and reason of Unitarians load them, at 
that period, jk: k How can two walk together, un- 

less the}} art ag Of course, I do not mean to extend the 

oper a tion of the principle, to which this question appeals, to all 
minute and comparatively unimportant matters in religion, as a 
zealous and bigoted partisan might be prom* to do, but to the, 
great, the distinctive, the fundamental principles of the Christian 
religion as such. If the Orthodox do, in their most sober judg- 
ment, regard the departure of Unitarians from these principles 
as a virtual renunciation of the distinctive elements of the Chris- 
tian religion, (as they truly do), then what remains for them, if 
they act with any kind of consistency, but to separate peaceably 
from Unitarians, in their religious services and rites ? Not to do 
this, would be to show, either that they were not sincere in their 
professed belief, or that, if sincere, they still regarded their prin- 
ciples as of very little consequence. That as a body they are 
sincere in their belief, is my full persuasion. But if so, how 
can they possibly look on such matters as have been and are in 
dispute as being of little consequence ; so little, indeed, that the 
right of yielding them, or of overlooking them, may be exercis- 
ed, whenever comity or etiquette may seem to make such a de- 
mand ? All this is fairly out of question. They are, as I be- 
lieve, in sober earnest ; and if so, ought they not, must they not, 
demean themselves accordingly ? He who is consistent in con- 
tending for religious liberty, must surely allow to them the lil>- 
erty of refecting some opinions, as well as of receiving some oth- 
ers. Why should another man's belief compel me to relinquish 
mine, or to regard or treat that which I am fully persuaded is 

intial and fundamental, as if it were of little or no conse- 
quence, and a thing that may be dispensed with at pleasure ? 

On the other hand ; I have never been able fully to under- 
stand, why Unitarians should have been so zealous and earnest 
to continue fellowship with the Orthodox. Fellowship with those, 

30* 



35 1 postscript. 

who, as the) affirm, gloat oyer the superstitions and conceits of 
the dark With those who worship a devil instead of the 

true God ! With those who are virtually guilty of idolatry in 
worshipping the Son and the Spirit! With those who are >uiv- 
to subject their fellow men to a bondage worse than thai 
under the Inquisition ! The old adi a, that - a man is 

known hij the company be keeps." Had they no fears of being 
found in fellowship and company with such impiety and bigotry 
and slavish and degraded superstition.- Jn iiut, considering 

what they wrote and published respecting the sentiments of the. 
Orthodox, it is one of tin 1 most inexplicable things in all the 

history of this Commonwealth, whether ecclesiastical or civil, 

that they so zealouslv and perscverinuly insisted on the most 
intimate religioua communion with the Orthodox, and were so 
indignant at its being refused. 1 have looked in vain for the 
satisfactory solution of such a problem, to the usual workings of 

the human mind. I am able to find hut two things, which aid 

me in any measure to account for the occurrence in question ; 

and neither of these, it is probable, will he admitted by Unita- 
rians* The one of these is, that religion is a by-the-by and 
secondary affair in the business of life, which may be accommo- 
dated in any way, and therefore need not he made so much of 
as the Orthodox profess to make of it; the other is. that the 

Unitarians of that period did not relish the idea of being held 
up before the public, as differing both from the opinions of the 
Pilgrim Fathers and from that of the; majority of their fellow 
citizens, lest it might throw some hindrances in the way of their 
success. .Most of the Orthodox an; inclined, perhaps, to the 

opinion, that hoth of these causes were combined, in bringing 
about the effect under consideration. 

Under the dynasty of Judge Parsons and Dr. Kirkland, two 

gacious and very expert leaders, the Unitarian party became 

Strong, that at la>l their fairs vanished : and since that, they 

have for the most part gradually and peaceably settled down, on 
the plan of agreeing to differ* This has saved the public from 

much useless agitation. I trust thai this tacit and implied com- 
pact between Unitarians and the Orthodox, will remain undis- 
turbed for the future, and tin' more so, as they have at last, (for 
such seems to be the opinion of a predominant majority among 
them , given birth to and raised up a new progeny of so-named 

fun firs, although of their own sect. With these truant children 
they stem at present to he more Occupied and concerned than 
with us, and they are often more indignant at them. We may 



P09TSCRH 

now congratulate ourselves, perhaps, on at least a little breath i 

I, as I \i\ Mild hope, from the arduous struggles of the arena. 
[11 the mean time, lefl Un the moment loose peace, ire \\ ill 
stand quietlj by, and look on to see how fflmt&hj the Liberal 

i treat each other. We are CUriOUS, Bfl SpOCtatOrS, to 

know liow aii txcommunicaUon for doctrine*$ woJu can be brought 
about, where there is not only no creed, l»nt where eternal war 
is proclaimed and waged against all creeds. Dies mdicabiL Till 

then, we will thank God Tor OUT Comfortable rest, and take eonr- 

But — we shall take care to keep our arms in sight. 

We have no intention to put away, and Stlfief to rust, the pano- 

pl) that as soldiers of the cross we ought to wear. We confi- 
dently expect, that, as soon as the revolting province in the do- 
main of Uoitarianism shall he BVbdued or exscinded, the whole 

forces of the empire will again he turned upon us; and proba- 
bly with a skill and Vigour which have been sharpened by con- 
test Let no Orthodox man then sleep upon his post Theocean 

that is quite calm where we are sailing to-day, may be speedily 
visited by tempest and tornado again, and the wa\es roll moun- 
tain-hinh. But if it must be so, we will humbly hope, and even 
confidently believe, that there is One who sits at the head of 
our little barque, who can arise and say to the winds and the 
waves: 4 Peace ! V^ still!' and they will obey him. 

A- a genera] thing, I should think that the laws of comity and 
urbanity, between the two great religious parties, are coming 
nearer and nearer to a gentlemanly and Christian shape. We 
are gradually coming nearer to the point of agisting to differ. I 
Strongly suspect, that the younger part of the Unitarian commu- 
nity now look back with astonishment on the fellowship battles 
which their fathers fought, and that they cannot well imagine, 
why they were not contented to manage their own aflairs in 
their own way, and to let their neighbours do the same. 

far so good. But there are some important things that 
remain, and of which it is time for some one to speak out in 
earnest. The win sin- scheme of managing Cambridge I'niver- 
sity as belonging solely to the Unitarians, has become, at last, 
rter of discussion in the highest Court to whieh this whole 
concern is amenable. The discussions there have already told 
some secrets ; or at least, they have brought to light thi; 
which had long been kept sub rOJO, The result thus far, con- 
stituted as that tribunal is, has of OOUTSe been in favour of the 
Unitarian measures. In particular, the last winter witnessed one 
event, which ought to be the subject of serious reflection to ev- 



35G POSTSCRIPT. 

eiy orthodox man in the Common wealth. Tin- is, the accept 
mm of a Report, in favour of the permanent connection and un- 
ion of the University of Cambridge with the Unitarian Theolog 
cal Seminary there Our leading judges, it seems, have given 

an opinion, that the donations to this Seminary are so condition- 
ed, that the two Institutions cannot he legalhj severed. I have 

I grounds for believing, that this is against the wishe* of many 
Unitarians, even of some leading persons among them. Hut the 
leading jurisconsults tell us thai the matter is decided, and cannot 
be changed without a violation of law and forfeiture of funds. 
For one, I deeply regret this, Not because I would deny to Unita- 
rians the privilege of having a Theological Seminary of their 

own. Par fttHD it. 1 would as readily give to them liberty to 
do this, as concede it to the Orthodox ; lor in this country they 
have the same right lo build up Seminaries of their own. But 

there are other difficulties respecting this matter, and they de- 
Serve serious attention from the candid of all parties. 

The University belongs to the State of Massachusetts, Yet 

if I send a SOD there, he must attend the woiship, at least morn- 

ing and evening, which is conducted by Unitarian theological 
Professors or Instructors. 1 It- may indeed by special favour ob- 
tain liberty, as I understand the matter, to Worship elsewhere 
on the Sabbath. But the normal condition of collegiate standing 
obliges him to be completely and exclusively under Unitarian 
teaching and influence, both scientific and religious. 

What right, now, in the first place, have the Corporation of 
this Stoic University, to put it exclusively under the manage* 
mem of Unitarianiml It would he quite in vain to allege, that 
there are no other competent instructors. What right have they 
to oblige an orthodox man to subject his son wholly to this in- 
fluence, during immeasurably the most plastic period of human 

lifer What right to suhject the parent in question, who is a 
member of this Commonwealth, to the expense and trouhle of 
sending his sons to another State, or to a distant Institution, in 
order that he may discharge what he regards as a sacred pater- 
nal duty to his children ? Liberty to worship abroad on the 

Sabbath 1 Why, this does not involve a tenth part of the influ- 
ences brought to bear upon the mind of a youth while at Col- 
lege. Why then oiler us such an inefficient anodyne for our 
Solicitude, in respect to a matter of such fearful interest'' Noj 
WS cannot accept it. We know too much of the influence of 

deraic life, and of the yielding and moldable state of the 
young, to trust to it. 



P08TS< KH 

n full) aware of the usual nuswei to all this, by alleging 
that the University <l<>r> n<»t act the part ofn instruction, 

opting tnerel) to 1 1 * - » ^ « * students who have finished their pri- 
mary collegiate course, and have devoted themselvefl t.» the 
study of theology. But, conceding for tin* moment that this 
temeui is true, how does it, or can it, relieve our main diffi- 
cult] - 7" vanlofa i posit iv< 'igious influence, would be an 
than the positive influence of Unttarianism, 
and one which a truly pious parent would wish of all things to 
»id. If", on the other band, there is mors or lees of positive 
religious influence, (and not to suppose this would be even 
surd, where all. or nearly all, the officers and instructors art 
Unitarian), then why is it not the imperious duty of a Christian 
parent, who sincerely adopts the views of the Orthodox; not vol- 
untarily to expose bis children to it? How can be be blamed 
for sending bis sons to another more congenial institution ? 
Or rather, bow could be be excused at the bar of religious con- 
nee, it' he did not ? 
What then is to be done? Or, If I may be permitted to give 
the question another shape : What OUght to be done ? This 
certainly is a graver question than most persons seem to be 
aware of Without any overweening confidence in my own 
judgment or ability to answer it, I would most respectfully, and 
with feelings of kindness and good will to all, make a lew sug- 
gestions. 

Shall the whole body of the Guardians and Instructors at 
Cambridge be changed, and Orthodox men be appointed in their 
place? No; for this would be for us to do tbe very same thing 
that we complain of in the Unitarians. It would be altogether 
a party and sectarian measure. Shall nil sects then in the 
Commonwealth, Fniversalists, Abner Kneeland's men, Fanny 
Wright's suitors, the Come-out-ers, the Hegelian Transcendental- 
iats, the Parkerites, the Swedenborgians, ct id genua onme, have 
their representatives in the University, and at least a place in 
one of the Hoards, or among the Faculty? 'Why not? it is 
d, 'for all (ken belong to the Slate? In theory, I readily 
acknowledge that I find it difficult to answer this question in 
the negative. J5ut still 1 have an instinctive feeling, that I must 
divest myself of all respect for the Court of the Muses, before I 
can give my practical assent to such an arrangement It would 
indeed be the utter ruin of the respectability of the University; 
and in my most sober judgment, it would be a crying sin against 
heaven and our country, to ruin an institution so noble as that. 



POSTSCRIPT. 

Here then is sue of tire predicaments, in which ei eon- 

ir iir man is loth to find himself placed. I argue against the man- 
agernesn of Cambridge College for the last forty years, that it 
has been altogether sectarian, while the Institution belongs to the 
Sivtk. And yet 1 nvoit from my position, when K come to 
such an exigency as that which I have just presented. Is not 

this Mowing h«)t and cold with the same breath? Or at best, 
is not any distinction that I can make, as tenuous as in one of 
the astronomical demonstrations, which connects important de- 
ductions or corollaries with the unassignable difference between 
an infinitesimal portion of a vanishing circle and of a vanish- 
ing right line, and holds them, at the moment of vanishing, to 
be a/iuil t 

1 frankly acknowledge the theoretical difficulty. But there are 
at least some farts ahout this matter, Which are plain. Ortho- 
doxy founded the College; originally endowed it; held exclu- 
sive possession of it until the last generation, or last hut one; 
and always considered it as its most important auxiliary in main- 
taining the opinions and practices of the Pilgrim Fathers. For 
some half a century past. Unitarians have immensely increased 
its funds and possessions and apparatus of all kinds, and its 
buildings. They have on this ground a claim upon it supe- 
rior to all others. What candid and honest man would deny 
them their rights in this respect? 

But what shall be done t What can be done, in a state of 
things so embarrassing ? This practical question is now the great 
one. I will not undertake to answer this question for my Ortho- 
dox brethren. I have no right to do this; for I am not at all 
their authorized representative. But I will venture to express 
my own thoughts and wishes, in a brief and respectful manner. 
Others of course have the same right to express theirs. 

1 would say at once: Give up the Fniversity to the Unitarians : 
for they have the strongest claims upon it, on the ground of 
endowments. Hut on the other hand, Unitarians should ■_ 
Up to the Orthodox, all the funds which this denomination have 
ever contributed, and all the books and apparatus which they 
formerly collected, or at least the value of them, and also the 
value of the buildings which they erected, and their proportion 
of the donations which the State has made to the Fniversity. 
This seems to me to be a plain demand Of justice and reason. 
I am well aware; that it cannot be enforced by law; and there 
are very many other things, just and reasonable, which the 
law cannot be brought to bear upon and enforce. 1 appeal 



POSTS* EUJ 

therefore to the high Court ot Equity, to the common sense of 
justice; to the principle of doing as wt would hi dom by; and 
II) to the principle of ity. The Unitariaas tsi 

Ithy enough to endow a dozen Universities and note, in 
tin- Commonwealth, and yet in no sensible measure impoverish 
themselves. It is my belief, that, if they could be led to see tin: 

Bjency, the} arc liberal enough to do what it requires, If the 
Orthodox give up the delightful location at Cambridge, with all 
its associate lear to the sons of Muses, is not this saorif 

enough on their part, even if they receive all which lias been 
named aboi 

I am noi able to see why it is not a great mistake, yea even 
a folly, to earn on the contest about Cambridge anj longer, 
after the manner of times that are past. It answers no possible 
good end. It results in the disappointment and chagrin of 

many on the one hand, and in somewhat perhaps of superci- 
lious exultation on the part of some on the other. It is there- 
fore worse than useless. Give up the whole concern, I would 
to my Orthodox brethren, to those who are already in pos- 
91on of the premises, provided they will deal generously with 
you. — May I be pardoned for saving this aloud, to all who sym- 
pathize with me in religious sentiment? 

I know there are some, on both sides, w ho w ill not relish this 
view of the subject. Some Unitarians, even of truly liberal feel- 
ings, would regret to see the College thrown into the hands of 
only one Sect, believing that it would help to diminish its repu- 
tation and influence. I honour this feeling; but I cannot be- 
lieve that it rests on a solid basis. After all that has been said 
against the Orthodox by Unitarians among us, (as developed in 
the preceding pages), in respect to their superstition, ignorance, 
idolatry, and bigotry, and their aim virtually to introduce an 
Inquisition among us, it is not to be reasonably expected that 
they will in general send their sons to be educated at Cam- 
bridge, while under the exclusive influence of Unitarianism. I 
think they cannot be persuaded to do so, as a general thing ; 
above all, while such a system of rigid exclusion is there pur- 
sued in the appointments to office. Then it seems to be ob- 
vious, that the mixture of two influences there, would either put 
the College into a state of violent contest, or spoil all positive 
good influences, by neutral insignificance. I can never think of 
such a plan with any good degree of approbation. I know that 
the like has been, and is, extensively done in Germany. But 
there the human mind is tamely submissive to governmental 



360 rosi en i:iPT. 

arrangements; and then too, where contest has not fierce 
raged 'm consequence of such an arrangement, Indifferenti 
become an overwhelming tide, bearing all away before it. 
\.w Englandera are incapable of such a state of th The 

mixture in question might indeed answer a part of the claim- of 
the mere theory of rights, But as a practiced measure, I doubt 
not thai it would be fraught with mischief, in one or both of the 
ways already stated. 

Let us behave then like rational men, and like gentlemen, In 

such a state of things, and make the bestofit that we can. Let 

us at least Ogrtt to dilj'ir. Let each ,L r <> his own way, and leave 

to Providence the disposal of future events. My belief, at least 

my hope, is, that there are minds generous enough among the 

Unitarians, 40 accede to >\w\\ proposals. 

I know not, indeed, how these \ie\vs may strike the pn 

Head of Cambridge University; for I have not Been him since 
bis return from Europe, and have in no way any particular 
knowledge of his own personal views. Of course 1 shall not 

undertake to state them. J5nt this J Well know, viz. that he po>- 
SSes the most ample accomplishments of literature, science, 
and taste, for the station that he occupies, and that his lite is 
free from any stain. My belief is, that he is of a truly liberal 
cast of mind, and that hewould not lift up one finger to do sec- 
tarian violence, or inflict wrong upon the rights and just claims 
of Others. On some such ground as this, probably, it is under- 
stood that lie was not originally the favorite candidate for the 
Presidency among the more zealous portion of the Unitarian 
community in this quarter. It is quite possible that this por- 
tion have been disappointed, on account of the decided tone of 

their own public in his favour. ]$nt they have, as it seems now 

to he understood, agreed to acquiesce in tin" choice of the ma- 
jority, probably for a very efficient reason which it would he 

useless for me to name. So he it ! If the University must re- 
main in this Struggling and somewhat hazardous condition, I do 
not think a better pilot could he chosen to steer the ship, than 
the one she now has. With my whole heart I wish him all 

cess in steering her through the breakers; and do Bincerely 

hope, that he will ere long he safe beyond them, and sailing on 

a quiet sea, with a shining heaven above it. 

To bring what I have to sa) respecting this great question 

about Cambridge to an end; more must he said and done than 

has been achieved by excited speeches at the meetings of Over- 
rs, and contests about elections to office, and the like. All 



. RIPT« H 

this sinkes no approach to a radical ours of the e\ il. Ju.<' 
must be done: ng/</ must h ■■ regarded — pract icall if re guided. 1 
il tin 1 Pamphlet or Speech of the lata President of Cam- 
bridge College in which h«- bai laboured t<> show, thai theQai- 
is, while under him, in its true position ai B Slot ln>ti- 
tution ; and this, liecause forsooth the Unitarians are at wtd& r i- 
ans ! Tins nuu, I orast c onfes s, m em ef the hi m I 

should have expected from a man of sense. No testa famt// 

What thru arc I nitarians doing iu Boo t OO ; and w hat in the 

ton of Vaud, and at Genera? Yea, might I not ask: What 

fie himself been doing? The Orthodox, so Auras! know, 

have in general the feeling, that with not ■ little «>t" professed 

impartiality and neutrality, there has been Scarcely a man in the 

Commonwealth, whe entertained a feeling nearoY to that of 

11 tor them, than this same gentlemen, so opj>osed to all 

Sed — de functis officio, nil. 

I appeal to the honest and generous tninded men of all par- 

. and specially among tin 4 l" nitarians, and ask: Whether it is 

hetter to put an end to this fruitless and exciting struggle, 

before matters have gone too far to let the voice of reason and 
naederatkm be beard! I do know, that the Orthodox as a body 
have a ieep sensation that might is made to stand in the place 
of rigM, in this matter. I know well that they cannot be satis- 
fied with such logic as Mr. Quincy's: and that they deem it 
passing strange, that so many men of wealth and generosity and 
en ligh tened views as to most other matters, should think of ap- 
propriating the Ilollis' Fund, and other ancient funds, as the 
Unitarians have done. The money is not worth a moment's con- 
cern ; but as to the principle concerned — I do truly wonder how 
conscience can be kept quiet in this matter. Still to persist in the 
exclusive course of Cambridge (for forty years past) will be certain 
to bring on at last a serious struggle. The Orthodox have a 
large majority in the State; and if the trial of strength in this 
way must be forced upon them, it is my full persuasion that they 
will be ready ere long to stand up in their places. J Jut I dread 
!i a contest. What if they should be victorious, and having 
control of the Legislature should proceed, as theii opponents 
have practically done, to make the I niversity a party one? 
How easy to make a test, that would man the Institution through 
and through with Orthodoxy. Nothing ID OUT laws could hinder 
such a proceeding. What I fear is, that they may yet be goaded 
to such a measure, by the doings of Unitarians. I should rue 
the day when this might take place ; for then the Orthodox 

31 



3C2 POSTSCRIPT. 

wmiiM bfl < ! « » i n lt just what is virtually now done by their oppo- 
nents. And 1 1 itn, tin* peace of the Slate: thr prosperity of its 

literature; the well being of education ; what is to become of all 

these great interests in such ■ straggle? It will be well for tie 

an ho plume themseh es on dexterity of management, to keep these 
thinirs steadily in view. One tiling, I believe with entire eor*- 
vietion, they may count u|)on. There are those — and many nre 
tjirv too — who will never Battle down into a tame acquiescence, 
that might shall stand for fight, We live in a State that threw 

the British tea overheard; proclaimed true national liberty in 

Faneuil Hall; fought the battles of Lexington and Bunker Hill ; 
and led the van in the Morions achievement of national independ- 
ence. How ran it be expected that we are always to sit down 
quiet and inacthe spectators, when some of our most sacred 
privileges are, ss we fully believe, infringed upon 9 

With a trembling hand and an aching heart I have penned 
these paragraphs, Ota calm review I cannot recall them. I do 
know that they speak the feelings of >cor- Ml of thousands; and 
imperfectly as 1 have done the duty of gifting these feelings a 
voice T I ba pe I shall not l>e taxed with exceeding the proper 
bounds of a fr e eman , a Protestant, and a follower of the Pilgrims. 

If my feeble voice, moreover, might reach the venerable Halls 
of Justice, I should venture to say a word even there. I have an 
almost exees-ive regard for our high Courts of Justice, and be- 
lieve them to l>e the very lite guard in the temple of liberty. It 
may be, that this is the result, in pait, of my earlier studies, 
which would have led me to frequent them; and which at all 
events have filled me with enthusiasm for the noble science of 
Jurisprudence. But I think every reflecting reader, who atten- 
tively peruses the history of England, must come to feel that her 
Judiciary lias been the bulwark, and the rampart, ami the high 
tower, of English liberty, and of the permanence of all her civic 
institutions. And so it is with us. Liberty — right — lives or dies 
with our Conns. Put a JetlVies of former days upon our Su- 
preme Tribunal, and what will be the result ? The question 
needs no answer. 

Jt is my lull persuasion, that our Judges do in cm* ct make 
twenty practical laws in reality, where 4 OUT Legislators make one. 
So it must be; and so, I am ready to say, it sliould be. They 
must have more skill, than the unpractised ; and they have as 
little motive to do wrong, as any body of men on earth. 

But I must now come to a more unwelcome part of my task. 
I have read witli attention, and with no little interest the decision 



i -osTscmri. 

of Chief Justice Parsons in the case of Burr vs. the Inhabitants 
of Sandwich, Mass. Reports IX. p. *>J77 seq.); of Chief Justice 
Parker, in the ease of Kiker ct \i. \>. I '.il*s, (Mass. Kep. \\ 1 
p. 188 a : : of Chief Justice Shnw , in the ease of Stehbins 
.li'!i!niii:s Pick. Rep, X. p. 172 seq.); all having one general 

hearimr, and all settling down on the principle, that a Christian 
church among us has no jwliticnl existence, except aa connected irith 

'rish, and no rights which she can claim Of entoree, (0 prop- 

crtv or anythinir else of appreciable value, when the majority of a 

pari>h arc against her, and separate tioni licr. All this loo, not- 

witbetanding an express Statute, which, long age, made the dea- 
cons <>f a church a wrprnnk aseSy so far as it concerns the holding 
and claiming of church property. The last of these Judges lias 

arirued the I it strikes my mind, by far the most ably ; 

and if he has not justified his decision under our laws as they 

. which I fully believe net to be the ease), be has come 
nearer to it than any of his predecessors. 

How stands this matter now, in our Commonwealth? Every 
church to which property has been given, can any day be 

stripped of it all, by a vote of a majority of a parish to form an- 
other church establishment* or even another ecelesiastical socie- 
ty. Such has been the case; and such will agate be the case, 
in oft repeated instances. 

How singularly all this strikes one who has just been reading the 
history of the Pilgrims, and finds that for half a century or more 
after our State was settled, no man could even enjoy the privi- 
leges of a freeman, who was not a member of a church ! Church 
and parish were identical. Now, the church depends, it seems, 
on the will of a majority who are not members of it, in any par- 
ticular place, for the rights, or at any rate for a part of the rights, 
of freemen. It has indeed no legal rights as a church, except 
in and through a parish. What a change ! As great as that 
from high Orthodoxy to low Unitarianism. Tempora mutantur ; 
et nos — jnutamur cum Mis! Never was this more strikingly ver- 
rified. Our Republic began in the spirit ; it is ending in the 
flesh. 

It is impossible for any reflecting man to read history, from 
the first settlement of this Commonweahh down to the preset 
period, without emotions of surprise, if not of regret. No coun- 
try on earth was ever settled by sueh a band of men, as first 
sought these shores in order to find I refuge from the oppression 
of the mother-country. There the all engrossing theme was, 
the established religion — the established religion — the established 



POSTSCRIPT. 

religion : the exact counterpart of " the temple of the Lord — 
the temple of the Lord — the temple of the Lord are lime," in 

.hi. 7:4. Of ctHirso n mall was deemed a secret rebel, who 
did not conform to the establish^! religion, and finally was thruM 
into pillories and jails, and Abridged of some of his highly im- 
portant ci\il and social rights, for non-conformity. The Pilgiim 
Jiand could not — would not — hrook this. They sought an a-\- 
Iiiiii from the O|ipre>>ion and contumacy of their rulers, spiritu- 
al and temporal, on tin* shores of a new world. BO distant that 
they indulged the hope, that u f umour of oppression and d« e< it 
would ne\er reach them inoiv." Here they established a gov- 
ernment which has grown up, and Income consolidated, and has 
comprised, and still comprises, a bed] of men. such as all the world 
besides is unable to exceed, it" they can anywhere equal them, 

- to intellectual, civil, and social acquisitions and privilei 
These are tarts which no well-informed considerate man will 
venture to den\ . K\ery le-i>lative speech, e\ery public oration, 
iv harangue in Fanned Hall, admits and ! of all this ; 

and I 'nitarians as much as others. 'Our fathers did this; and 
our fathers did that f and by their immortal w isdom and ■ j 
city, and their lofty spirit of freedom, they erected the goodly 
structure in which their posterity meet to eulogize them, and to 
exhort one another to walk in their steps, and to ropy their ex- 
ample. 

Here now is one of the most singular tilings ever recorded 
by the faithful Mi\<t> of history. What sort of men wore they, 
then, who achieved all these wonderful deeds, worthy of en!' 
until time shall be no more ? The very class of men, whom 
Dr. ('"banning, and his admirers, and indeed many Unitarians of 
all grades, proclaim to be worshippers of a God who has the 
attributes of a devil ; to be credulous, superstitious, and given to 
u old wives' tables :" to be zealous for doctrines M which fall far 
below most of tin' heathen systems of religion ;" to aim at Clamp- 
ing ami subjugating all freedom of investigation, reasoning, or 
opinion, in matters of religion ; and to be bent upon lasmn- 
ing on the necks of the community a yoke more galling than 
that of the Inquisition itself. For surely, if all these tin- 
said of the pn iteration of the Orthodox, (and no one will 

dare deny that they an 1 !, then they are affirmed a fortiori of our 
fathers, who went much further in fixing lasnl protection to the 
churches than w e, and were much farther than we now 
fiMin the true line of entire Christian liberty. But how comes 
it about that these 4, dc\ il-wor>hipp< sro," and ' k bigots,' 1 and * fob 



-1-ruirT. 3C5 

in the train of St Dominic," erected such n glorious tem- 
ple to Lilierty, loft) as the heavens, and wide as the domain of 
the Commonwealth? 1 1 * »w came the moat perfect Republic on 
tin* Rice of the whole earth, from the hand- of such men as 
these? If any Unitarian, who reechoes the reproachful words 
of \)\. Charming and his disciples, will solve me this enigma, I 
promise him more feme than Oedipus ever acquired by solving 
the riddle of the Theban Sphinx, It is out of all question. 
Unitariaji Orators who blazon the virtues and good deeds 
and glorious achievements of our Pilgrim fathers, feel obliged to 

throw oll'the shackles w Inch men of Dr. < 'hanninirV stamp would 
impose upon them — not to say (which would be somewhat in- 

rjve the lie to all accusations of than nature. Since 

the* world was created, a higher, nohler race of true Liberty- 

Min never lived upon it than Cali iicu 

Where (in the language of one of our most potent orators) 
Was k * the first considerable Ohorch established in modern times, 
without a bishop, and State without a fcwur?" Was it not at (Ge- 
neva, and under the auspices of Calvin ? That little Republic, 
buih up by his wisdom, and consolidated by his discretion and 
true love of liberty, has stood amidst the wrecks of kingdoms 
around it, res p e ct ed by all the world, and the abode of freedom, 
until Unitarians forced the government of it to be put into their 
bauds; and since that time, it lias become the abode of oppres- 
sion and violence. 

Who does not know, that the English exiles learned at Gene- 
va their notions of true religious liberty, which they carried 
borne from thence, and which in the end dethroned the hypo- 
critical and domineering Charles I., and breathed tin; air of free- 
dom over the whole kingdom, from John e 1 Groats' to the Land's 
End? At this eventful period, our Republic sprang into exis- 
tence. The Liberty-men in question were its founders. A noble. 
building did they erect. If the Corinthian and the Composite 
did not pervade its original architecture) it exhibited, and still 
exhibits, in its grandeur and massive strength, the Doric and 
the Palmleaf column. Who dares to rail at these men, now, 
among Mf? I was ready to say: Not even a dog moves his 
tongue. Hut no ; I find that 1 must recall this. There is at 
least one man, once I behove a minister of the Gospel in this 
State, (whether a native I know not), who has published even 
a volume to show, that the Pilgrim Fathers were actually all 
which Dr. ( 'banning has so recently affirmed us to be. I un- 
derstand, however, that he is on his journey to St. Peter's and 

31* 



rosTSCRir 

in ■ fair way Un' a rapid and prosperous fOyage thither. These 

loo ]n> will iiK'ct with those choic« spirits, which in I airland 

have taken up the cowl that Ignatius Loyala bequeathed to all 

l\t<i : s ESkd — with Newman, and Ward, and a hosl of <>\- 

! compeers — with others toe of our own country, whose in- 

iticance protects them from all exposure to the public. In 
that joyful throng, which are so SOOO to meet under thatCHM 
domt, which is the wonder (if not the terror) of the world, tli 
Mill doubtless raise their voices so high, as to <*) the vaulted 

Getting with the aOSSS of a Tt Ikum for their wonderful deliver- 
enee from the bondage (not meielyor principally of sin and 
Satan, but) of Calvinism and Orthodoxy, and their restoration to 
the glorious liberty of kissing the toe of St Peter's succssnsjs or 

at an\ rate, it' they should fail of this, of Uissinir the toe of that 
statue, which was once the image of Jupiter Olympius in a 

heathen temple, hut is now coiivrrfu! hy haptismal water into a 

true and exact representation of Peter himself. All hail ! to 
those Choicest of the elect of the Vicar of God and St. Dominic! 
May they live a thousand and one years, and their ifcarfa— PSyef 

he le»! Live, I would say, in a monastery of their own — sepa- 
rate forever from the sacred soil of Liberty and of Orthodoxy ! 
Jhit to return ; nearly all political orators have too much 
tact to make open and public assaults upon the Pilgrims. 
S<»me of our pulpit orators and pamphlet and review-w -rit< 
have less of discretion and magnanimity. The names, indeed, 
of those venerated fathers are rarely called out in the way of 
reproach. The art of sagacious management consists, in throw- 
im: contumely and contempt overall that was distinctive in their 
religious opinions, without being suspected of such a des ig n. 
It is only in this way that the descendants of the Pilgrims can 

be misled. 
1 make the challenge, then, openly and fearlessly, to all who 

tread under foot tin' religious (/reed of our fathers — the chal- 
lenge to show the consistency of what they affirm of all Ortho- 
doxy, and of orthodox men as bigOiSj and unrelentimr supei>ti~ 
tious zealots, and advocates of religious oppression, and enen 
to all freedom of impiin, and {'wv religious action, with the high 

encomiums which they foe! obliged to bestow en the civil and 

•ial institutions of the very men in (piestion. Then IS M 

wag of meeting this challenge. Pacts — facts that are before 

the whole world — contradict all which they affirm of the' ten- 
dencies of Orthodox} to suppress civil, social, or religious liber* 

t>. I'\ in \ TiiAr this AciisvTiii.v is wot rat 



If now such matters are not to be decided by experience, by 
fads, in whal waj m an> question of a practical nam r to 

I »e decided er to tins ques- 

tion, il thinking ami tobsc inen. 

bet m\self in turning aside I n\ heart-felt 

homage to the Puritan Pilgrims, I must now psjHBJM tbfl - 
sideration of our present reception in the Halls of Justice with- 
in our 5! 

I certain!} believe, that our forefathers acted 

wisely in that p iff new government, which had re- 

_ M l fret- 1 nan. lint 1 can easily s* 'bey 

mistak e ground of ti- 100a 

and oppression- ungodly ci\il rulers, the legal head- 

churches in Knglaiid. had indicted upon them. They meant to 
the civil power, for the future, again:rt oppression and 
But \r it with their descendants of the sixth and 

mth generation? The church has no rights now. except as 
leaning upon and connected with the parish. It is a body un- 
known to the law. and unrecognized by it. except as a mere ap- 
pendage to those who are not the church. Truly, I may 
again, a levolution as great in our civil rights as in our the- 

If now the u glorious uncertainty ot the law can throw its am- 
ple shield before our Judges, and protect them from any other ac- 
cusation at the most than mere error in a legal opinion, 
(and even from this, in the view of Unitarians), still, I have a 
p seated conviction that Unitarianism has unconsciously ope- 
rated on the minds of these same Jurisconsults, and given un- 
consciously a hue to their thoughts and reasonings on this sub- 
ject. It is indeed no small matter to disfranchise Christian 
churches, and make them virtual outlaws, and dependent for their 
property and their sacred utensils on the will of a parish. One 
simple principle seems to me to be enough to settle this whole 
matt r. in the mind of any plain unsophisticated reasoner. This 
is, that a lawful gift t<> a mm. or to any body of men recognized 
and ap; .s such by the laws of the ^u.te. is bona fide their 
property, and t heir's forever. It m ay indeed be wrenched from 
them I _ lery of legal ratiocination : but 
the simple ml principles of justice decide the matter 
beyond appeal. I m.-ikn no accusations of intention to do wrongs 
on the part of those distinguished Judges. I do not believe 
they were conscious of any such design. But it is im|>ossible 
for me to belit the bauful intention of donors to churches 



368 postscript. 

has not been substantially frustrated by the deeisions of our 

Courts: and t herpft w I must think that it Kfl a |ii>t matter lor 
hir'ishuive inhr/cnnrr. Kven it' we fully Concede, that the de- 
cisions in question fan be tec hni cally justified, in the eye of our 
p res et law-, ni\ convictions would not he changed in tin; least 
It i< one of those rery plain cases, where I should spontaneous- 
ly >a\ : Summutn jus, summn injuria. 

Why should it be a matter of wonder, then, that the Ortho- 
dox are dissatisfied wit li what they seriously regard as an inju- 
rious infringement upon their rights ? Nay, I might boldly ven- 
ture to ask a different question: Do they not deserve gnat 
eredit for patience and longanimity and aversion to tumult and 
disorder, since they have Waited in quiet tor redress so long — 
and 1 fear that I must add, with so little prospect of obtaining it? 

Yet, after all, I cannot help hoping, that when the excitement 
Wttich attends the commencement of disputes shall have passed 
away, Unitarians will return to the feeling, that the denial of 
just claims to the larger portion of the community, whether 
under the specious cover of law or in any other way, is not the 
bam method even of spreading or of establishing their own re- 
ligious views. A g en e ro sity of feeling will yet, as I am inclined 
to think, obtain the upper hand. There is surely a large class 
of men among them, who would look on oppression and injus- 
tice, in almost any other form, with scorn and indignation. 
What we ask of them is, to reflect soberly on the wrongs of 
which we complain. We have no wish, even if it were entire- 
ly within our power, to abridge them of their right to propagate 
their own views, or to establish Universities, 'Theological Semi- 
naries, Academies, Schools, and Churches, when and where 
they phase. We have no desire to appropriate their funds to 
our use. They stand in no need of appropriating ours to their 
use. Above all — to seize upon the little property or the sacra- 
mental utensils of a country church, and to force the Supreme 
Court to become an instrument in such an act of spoliation — 
really looks so undignified, BO grasping, SO oppressive, that I 

most confess it fills me with unqualified astonishment. It needs 

no second sight to predict, that in the Hay State such pioceed- 
ingfl will not be likely to open the way to popular favour and 
sia-ee<<. The suppressed sense of injury, w inch all thinking 
men entertain with whom my religious view- associate* me, 
fbrbodea some future efforts in earnest to secure their religious 

rights and liberties, unless the hand of oppression is lightened. 

Host sincerely do I hope that the time may never come, when 
such efforts must be made. 



ro t. SCO 

Tin 1 lofty position which HMHohoa taken, and 

still takes, in the cause of civil ami social lilierty, renders all the 
proceedings, which it has !>•• n my painful task to d< the 

inon Who will ever heli.-ve bc i ealW, that lnHarian- 

n religion i What has it mi done ben, in 
lendhag anon enlightened men, w o r thy in other reepecti of all 

estimation ami booO OT, tO measures SS inconsistent with the 

prnl ami tin* character of iMs free rcpuhlic - What 

it not <lom What is it not doing in the GetttOH of 

Viand? No 5 while I>r. Phaiilng sod his friendi ami Me* 
pour out the risk of their indign ati on npan a large portion <>f 
their fellow eftiasasjsnd rep roa ch them with the soperstitiew 

the dark ad attempts to hind the consciema - of men in 

ehains of an Inquisition, ami the like, WO 1 1 HO delay m make 

the reply: Mutato nomine, dt te tabula narratur. You arc the 
ui.'M who oppress, by denying to others their just ami law- 
ful rights, and in seeking a refage from the consequences of 
this, by interposing the broad shield of legal technicalities. But 
Jkmfr the Guardian Spirit of Justice, if we may hearken to the 
assurance of Aeschylus, though slow of foot. is sure ofpi 
She will come at last, and speak in language that the very deaf 
shall hear. 



END. 









1 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



022 171 849 5 







III,. ilHHH 



